As someone who uses Rust, "more features" is not a win. Most of the time it rarely impacts me - especially in Rust it seems that a "Box" here or there can fix code at the potential cost of performance.
But there are cases, often for libraries, where features can be quite helpful and make me faster. If a feature is basically "make code that should have already worked actually work", that's a huge win.
A lot of Rust features tend to be that. It's like "OK, we have 'impl trait', but it only works in some places. Let's let it work in more places." So,yeah, sure, that's a new feature - impl trait in new positions - but it's really just supporting code that many people would have expected to work.
I see this GAT feature similarly. It wouldn't be hard to "accidentally" try to have a generic associated type - in fact, I have probably run into this myself. And so GAT isn't really adding more complexity to me, it's just unlocking code that I would have already written.
Similarly, with GAT, we can unlock 'async' in traits. I already know 'async', I know it on functions and methods. So this is, again, just making an existing feature more consistent.
But there are cases, often for libraries, where features can be quite helpful and make me faster. If a feature is basically "make code that should have already worked actually work", that's a huge win.
A lot of Rust features tend to be that. It's like "OK, we have 'impl trait', but it only works in some places. Let's let it work in more places." So,yeah, sure, that's a new feature - impl trait in new positions - but it's really just supporting code that many people would have expected to work.
I see this GAT feature similarly. It wouldn't be hard to "accidentally" try to have a generic associated type - in fact, I have probably run into this myself. And so GAT isn't really adding more complexity to me, it's just unlocking code that I would have already written.
Similarly, with GAT, we can unlock 'async' in traits. I already know 'async', I know it on functions and methods. So this is, again, just making an existing feature more consistent.