A Religion Called 'The Perfect Language': Narcissistic Defense Mechanisms in the Rust Community
Sat, Jun 14 2025 14:39:07 KSTRust is, without a doubt, one of the most remarkable languages in the modern programming ecosystem. Its promise of guaranteeing memory safety at compile-time while offering performance on par with C++ has captivated countless developers. Its powerful features and vibrant community have elevated Rust to something approaching a technical ideal.
But every light casts a shadow. For a certain subset of its users, Rust is no longer just a ‘tool’; it has become an infallible ‘creed,’ an ‘identity.’ And when even the slightest criticism is leveled against this belief system, they react as if judging a religious heretic—with blame, ad hominem attacks, the spread of false information, and even cyberstalking.
This is not a simple matter of technical passion or fandom. Today, I intend to dissect this phenomenon, which I have personally experienced, through the psychological lens of ‘collective narcissism’ and its defense mechanisms.
Why Does a ‘Language’ Become an Object of Narcissism?
How can a single programming language become so intertwined with personal ego as to create such powerful defense mechanisms?
1. The Narcissistic Projection of ‘I Am Special’
Underlying this phenomenon is a simple but potent psychological syllogism:
“Rust is a technically superior and perfect language.”
“I am a developer who uses and understands the difficult language of Rust.”
“Therefore, I am superior to and more special than developers who use other languages.”
Through this logical leap, they completely project their self-esteem and identity onto the object of ‘Rust.’ An attack on Rust’s flaws is no longer a technical debate; it is perceived as a direct assault on their intelligence, competence, and very sense of self-worth. An attack on Rust becomes an attack on ‘me.’
2. The Collective Grandiosity of ‘We’
This extends beyond individual narcissism into ‘collective narcissism.’ They share a strong sense of belonging and superiority, believing, “We, the Rustaceans, are the pioneers who understand the true value of memory safety.”
In this process, a binary worldview naturally forms: ‘us’ (the enlightened) and ‘them’ (the unenlightened, still mired in the unsafety of C++ or the laziness of garbage collectors). And when ‘they’ dare to criticize ‘our’ perfect world, a defensive attack is launched to protect the entire group’s ego.
Defense Mechanisms Against Criticism: How They Attack ‘Heretics’
A narcissist’s ego, while appearing powerful, is in fact as fragile as glass. Consequently, primitive and aggressive defense mechanisms are activated to protect it.
1. Idealization and Devaluation
First, they idealize ‘Rust’ as the perfect solution to all problems. Obvious drawbacks like Rust’s steep learning curve, long compile times, or the complex lifetime concept are intentionally ignored or dismissed with a “you just don’t get it yet.”
Conversely, the person who points out these flaws immediately becomes the target of devaluation.
One of the most insidious logical fallacies they employ here is the ‘framework of unfair comparison’. They directly compare ‘safe Rust’, which is guaranteed by the compiler, with the inherent ‘unsafety’ of the C/C++ language to assert Rust’s superiority. But this is not a fair comparison. A truly fair comparison would be between ‘unsafe Rust’, where the developer is fully responsible for all memory management, and C/C++. In both these domains, safety is determined by the developer’s competence. Deliberately comparing a domain with safety features to one without is a deeply illogical and narcissistic defense mechanism used to maintain their idealization and devalue other languages.
2. Projection and Blame-Shifting
Instead of discussing the technical validity of a criticism, they attack the critic’s ‘intentions.’ This is ‘projection’—casting their own insecurities onto the other person.
“You’re only criticizing Rust because you hate to admit that your own favorite language isn’t as good.”
By shifting the blame—making the problem not ‘Rust’s flaw’ but ‘your inferiority and malice’—they derail the discussion and frame the opponent as an immoral actor.
3. Narcissistic Rage: Ad Hominem Attacks and Cyberstalking
When logic fails and their beliefs continue to be threatened, they resort to their final weapon: ‘Narcissistic Rage.’ This is no longer a debate but an attack meant to destroy the opponent. They dig up a critic’s past statements to ridicule them, spread false information to damage their reputation, and engage in cyberstalking—all in an attempt to excommunicate the ‘heretic’ from the community.
For the Health of Technical Communities
This phenomenon is not technical passion for Rust. It is a pathological psychological defense mechanism used to protect a fragile ego that has been fused with a ‘perfect technology.’ The greatest tragedy is that this blind worship and aggression actually harms the Rust ecosystem itself by shutting down opportunities for growth through constructive criticism and preventing talented outsiders from joining the community.
Here, we must ask a final question. If their goal is a true ‘technical exploration’ of safety, why do they so heavily emphasize the ‘unsafety’ of C++ while actively ignoring comparisons with languages like Ada, which has reigned for decades in the most mission-critical systems like aerospace and defense?
The reason is that their goal is not an ‘academic inquiry into safe software,’ but to protect the ‘hero narrative’ of demonizing C++ and crowning Rust as the savior. Uncomfortable truths that complicate this narrative are excluded from the discussion from the start.
No technology is perfect. The true greatness of a technology lies not in the belief in its perfection, but in the ‘health of its community’—a community that can frankly admit its flaws, constantly learn, and improve together. We must look beyond the code to the hearts of the people who write it. Respect for fellow developers, not worship of a technology, is the only path to building truly great software.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.