An In-depth Critique of the "Why Rust?" Argument: Technology and Its Psychological Background

In programming communities, four common reasons are often presented when arguing for Rust’s superiority. While each claim appears valid on the surface, a closer examination of their context reveals them to be less an objective technical evaluation and more a logic intended to reinforce a particular belief system. This article intends to critically review each of these arguments.

Argument 1 & 2: Resource Efficiency & Absence of GC

“It uses fewer resources than VM languages at runtime, and the absence of a GC prevents unpredictable system-wide pauses.”

Critique: While this statement is factually correct, it is not a unique advantage of Rust but a common characteristic of natively compiled languages like C, C++, and Ada. Presenting this commonality as if it were a special property exclusive to Rust is a form of devaluation that intentionally ignores the existence of other systems languages. Claiming this feature as unique to Rust is particularly unconvincing when considering languages like Ada, which have been used for decades in aerospace and defense, fields that demand the highest level of predictability.

Argument 3: Unified Development Environment

“There is virtually no environment fragmentation, and the official Cargo tool handles everything.”

Critique: A unified toolchain centered on Cargo is undeniably one of the greatest success factors of the Rust ecosystem and a powerful advantage for collaborative efficiency. However, the assertion that ‘Cargo is the only way’ is not entirely accurate. Rust can also be built with tools like Makefiles as needed, and this reality should prevent a blind idealization of its toolchain. Furthermore, the Ada ecosystem is also evolving with modern package managers like Alire (alr). The success of a specific toolchain does not inherently signify the philosophical or technical perfection of the language itself.

Argument 4: Memory Safety & Forced Error Handling

“Not to mention memory safety, the Result type forces explicit error handling. throw/catch is not forced and is therefore dangerous.”

Critique: Rust’s design, which guarantees memory safety at compile-time, is excellent. However, the argument that throw/catch is dangerous because it’s not forced is a classic fallacy of hasty generalization. For instance, Java enforces error handling at compile time through a mechanism called ‘Checked Exceptions.’ Moreover, equating a feature’s ‘optionality’ with its ‘dangerousness’ is a logical leap. A program’s stability is secured not just by language features, but also by developer competence and discipline, such as API documentation, static analysis, and robust design principles.

Here, we must again bring up the ‘inconvenient truth’ of Ada. Ada has provided safety through strict, language-level exception handling since 1983, and this design philosophy of safety became even more explicit and robust with the introduction of Design by Contract features in 2012. While Rust’s Result type is a modern and refined enforcement method, to package it as the one and only solution is an attitude that willfully ignores or disparages the value of proven alternatives like Ada. This can be an expression of collective grandiosity—an ‘only we know the answer’ attitude.

Conclusion: Why are these arguments repeated? - A Narcissistic Defense Mechanism

So why are similar arguments repeated, even at the cost of such obvious logical leaps and factual distortions?

This can be explained less as pure passion for technology and more through the psychological lens of '’collective narcissism’ and its ‘defense mechanisms’, as insightfully analyzed in the reference article ‘A Religion Called “The Perfect Language”.’

At its core lies the narcissistic projection of “I use a perfect language → therefore, I am superior and special”. An individual’s self-esteem and identity become completely dependent on the ‘perfect tool.’ From this moment on, any criticism of the technology is perceived as an attack on one’s own self-worth.

To protect their fragile egos, individuals with this tendency use very primitive defense mechanisms. They idealize ‘Rust’ as the solution to all problems and devalue critics as ‘ignorant people who don’t understand.’ They also shift blame by attacking a critic’s motives—”You’re just criticizing out of an inferiority complex”—instead of debating the technical points.

Ultimately, this phenomenon is less a healthy debate for technological advancement and more a ‘holy war’ to protect one’s beliefs. The greatest tragedy is that this blind worship and aggression actually block opportunities for growth through constructive criticism, making the tech ecosystem itself unhealthy.