> Duplicate work should only happen if you are confident that [...]
You are making a ton of assumptions on the quality of the average library you can depend on: that a whole team worked on it, that it worked on it a long time and that it produced good code. That's really not a given.
You are also assuming that writing a feature instead of using a library is "duplicate work". It's not necessarily the case. Maybe the library approaches the problem in a much more generic way than you need. Your requirements are not "significantly different" then, just a subset of the library.
> so that such critical requirements can be properly guaranteed, again probably better than you can do yourself.
Are you saying that the packages available in cargo are systematically audited? I believe that the vast majority of them is not audited at all.
You are making a ton of assumptions on the quality of the average library you can depend on: that a whole team worked on it, that it worked on it a long time and that it produced good code. That's really not a given.
You are also assuming that writing a feature instead of using a library is "duplicate work". It's not necessarily the case. Maybe the library approaches the problem in a much more generic way than you need. Your requirements are not "significantly different" then, just a subset of the library.
> so that such critical requirements can be properly guaranteed, again probably better than you can do yourself.
Are you saying that the packages available in cargo are systematically audited? I believe that the vast majority of them is not audited at all.