> No, should I have to?

You don't have to do anything, including publishing misleading comparisons.

> Until rust has a stable ABI that doesn't require everything be statically linked it's a rust problem.

Qt can be dynamically linked into a Rust application. For example, the default is to dynamically link glibc on Linux x86_64.

I'm comparing the file size of one tool to the published sized of a similar tool, how is that misleading? If the size can be reduced then why isn't it done when you publish it? Considering one is on disk size and the other is zipped I think I'm being more than fair.

>Qt can be dynamically linked into a Rust application. For example, the default is to dynamically link glibc on Linux x86_64

Again, it was an example. Show me a similar rust library that can be dynamically linked to like this? A rust equivalent will have to either use a c interface or be statically compiled.

> how is that misleading?

I explained how. Take it or leave it.

> If the size can be reduced then why isn't it done when you publish it?

Because it's not a big deal? The only people who complain about this are people debating holy wars on HN, as if the static vs dynamic trade offs haven't been well understood by now.

> Again, it was an example. Show me a similar rust library that can be dynamically linked to like this?

Rust's standard library.