In recent years, Rust has gone from being an unknown name to becoming the centerpiece of tech debates worldwide. From giants like Microsoft, Dropbox, or Discord to open-source projects and emerging startups, everyone seems to be talking about this language. Why does it generate such enthusiasm? And why, at the same time, do some see it as a powerful tool… but not suitable for every case?
Rust’s Promise: Speed and Safety
Rust was born with an ambitious mission: to deliver the speed of C, the safety of Java, and a modern, expressive syntax. Its major contribution is what many consider its “superpower”: ensuring memory safety without the need for a garbage collector (garbage collector).
In practice, this means it avoids very common errors seen in languages like C or C++, where mishandling pointers can lead to security vulnerabilities. According to Microsoft, such flaws account for about 70% of their security issues. With Rust, the compiler catches these errors: if a program isn’t safe, it simply won’t compile.
Success Stories That Made Headlines
Real-world examples have cemented Rust’s reputation:
- Discord rewrote a critical service in Rust, achieving a 10x performance increase and eliminating annoying pauses caused by Go’s garbage collector.
- Dropbox dedicated four years to rebuilding its desktop sync engine, capable of handling hundreds of billions of files. Their conclusion was clear: Rust multiplied team efficiency.
- Microsoft integrated Rust into parts of Windows. In just the typography subsystem, they rewrote 152,000 lines of code, improving performance by between 5% and 15% and reducing security risks.
- Amazon Web Services (AWS) used Rust to create Firecracker, the lightweight engine powering some of their serverless services.
These aren’t isolated cases. Many command-line tools—like ripgrep or bat—have proven to be much faster than classic Unix utilities. So much so that thousands of developers have shifted their workflows thanks to them.
The Other Side: A Steep Learning Curve
However, enthusiasm shouldn’t obscure the challenges. Rust has a steep learning curve, especially for those coming from garbage-collected languages like Java, Python, or Go. The concept of ownership and borrowing can be perplexing initially, and many programmers admit it takes 3 to 6 months to feel comfortable.
Furthermore, compile times can disrupt workflow: even small projects take about 15-20 seconds to compile, which can be frustrating for those used to instant feedback.
Comparison with Other Languages
Rust is often measured against other system languages:
- C: maximum control and speed, but with a high risk of memory errors.
- C++: adds modern abstractions, albeit at the cost of greater complexity.
- Go: shines for simplicity and rapid development, though it sacrifices some low-level control and, in some cases, performance.
- Zig: emerging and promising, with good design but a still limited ecosystem.
In this landscape, Rust occupies a middle ground: it combines control and safety but requires accepting a higher initial difficulty and longer compile times.
Why Do Some Companies Decide Not to Use Rust?
The case of TypeScript is illustrative. Although they valued Rust, they opted to port their engine to Go because they could do it in about a year, whereas with Rust, it would have taken several years. The simple reason: Rust excels in safety and performance, but isn’t always practical when delivery time matters most or when needing compatibility with existing ecosystems.
Such decisions demonstrate that, in technology, there’s no universally “better” language: what matters is the context and the objective.
Where Does Rust Make the Most Sense?
Rust is especially useful in:
- Long-running services where memory safety is critical.
- High-performance applications, such as synchronization engines or network services.
- Command-line tools, where speed makes a difference.
Conversely, it may not be the best choice for rapid prototyping, small teams with tight deadlines, or environments where significant investments have already been made in other languages.
A Realistic Conclusion
Rust isn’t just a trend. Its contributions are real and are transforming how large companies develop secure, efficient software. But it’s not a panacea: learning it takes time, compilation is slower, and in some contexts, other languages remain more practical.
Perhaps the best way to understand Rust is this: it doesn’t aim to replace everything, but to occupy the space where its advantages—security, performance, and reliability—offer value that other languages cannot match as effectively.
In a constantly changing tech world, Rust is proving to be a key piece. Not the only one, but a very valuable one.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What sets Rust apart from languages like Java or Go?
Rust offers memory safety without a garbage collector, preventing pauses and reducing vulnerabilities, though with a steeper learning curve.
Why is Rust considered so safe?
Because its ownership and borrowing system prevents compilation if there are risks involving use-after-free or race conditions. This avoids many common errors found in other languages.
Is Rust always the best choice?
No. Rust excels in high-performance and security projects, but may not be suitable for rapid prototyping or teams with very tight deadlines.
Which sectors benefit most from Rust?
Currently, especially cloud infrastructure, operating systems, command-line tools, and some critical services at tech giants like Microsoft, AWS, Dropbox, or Discord.
via: Why Everyone Talks About Rust (And Why It’s Not Always the Best Choice)