What's wrong with it as long as it comes from a https URL with low potential for typo squatting (a short .sh domain would be even more natural but maybe controversial and a bit expensive for just this)? You don't have to pipe it into sh, you can also redirect it ie "> install.sh" then examine it before running. What's the alternative? A dozen incompatible centralized lang-specific or distro-specific package managers? Might work for devs but not end users, might not work with all licenses, is extra work for distros + Mac OS so chances are the O/S you're using or would otherwise be using isn't covered, ...
The whole point of this installation method is ease of use. You can use it for convenience if you prefer it. I don't see the issue with providing more options not less.
Try examining the above script. It's a lot of work. It's not just a bunch of wget's and cp's, there are a bunch of subroutines and conditionals. Too much to look at.
Also as another user pointed out, uninstallation is a problem.
> Try examining the above script. It's a lot of work. It's not just a bunch of wget's and cp's, there are a bunch of subroutines and conditionals. Too much to look at.
This would be a reasonable counter-argument if most people could honestly claim to have inspected the source of >1% of the things they'd installed from apt-get/yum/etc.
"But I trust the maintainers of those repositories to verify correctness" - yes, and people trust the Rust maintainers, too.
I'll grant you that uninstallation is usually a good argument (though not in this particular case).
