A Critical Examination of Certain Arguments Surrounding Rust's Adoption

Rust is undoubtedly one of the most notable languages in the modern programming ecosystem. Its powerful features centered on memory safety have presented new possibilities to many developers. However, in the process of discussing Rust’s success, arguments are sometimes observed that go beyond the merits of the technology itself, containing exaggeration or logical leaps. The purpose of this article is not to criticize any specific person or group, but to critically examine these arguments for the sake of a healthier and more productive tech discussion culture.

Argument 1: “A certain country’s/group’s technical level is low, so they can’t adopt Rust.”

Sometimes, claims are made along the lines of, “The Korean IT industry is mired in old technology and cannot embrace new technologies like Rust.” Such an argument oversimplifies a complex reality. Whether a specific technology is adopted is not simply a matter of ‘technical level,’ but a ‘strategic choice’ that considers the following complex factors.

  • Stability and Cost of Legacy Systems: Rewriting massive, stably operated financial, manufacturing, or public systems in a new language involves enormous costs and unpredictable risks. This may not be due to a lack of technical skill, but a rational business decision that prioritizes stability.
  • Ecosystem and Talent Pool: Mature languages like C++, Java, and C# have vast libraries, proven frameworks, and a rich talent pool of experienced developers. When considering productivity and stability for a new project, a mature ecosystem is a very important factor.
  • Diversity of Technological Choice: ‘Not using Rust’ does not mean ‘using old technology.’ For solving a specific problem, other modern languages like Go, Kotlin, or modern C++ might be a more suitable choice.

Argument 2: “Rust is replacing all systems programming.”

Based on the symbolic event that “Rust code was introduced into the Linux kernel,” some argue as if Rust is becoming the standard for systems programming. This can be an error of ‘over-interpretation’ that exaggerates the importance of a fact.

  • Objective Fact: As of 2025, the proportion of Rust in the entire Linux kernel source code is less than 1%.
  • Purpose of Adoption: Rust is not replacing the kernel’s core, but is being introduced ‘gradually’ and ‘limitedly’ in some areas like new device drivers where memory safety is particularly critical. This is an exploration of its ‘possibility’ as an alternative to C, not a stage of ‘replacing’ C.

Argument 3: “To criticize Rust is to be ignorant or malicious.”

In response to healthy technical criticism, we sometimes see attacks directed not at the logic of the critique, but at the person making it.

  • Ad Hominem Fallacy: Arguments like, “You say that because you don’t know Rust,” or “You’re criticizing out of loyalty to another language,” are logical fallacies that blur the point by attacking the opponent’s qualifications or motives.
  • Appeal to Authority: There are also cases where only the favorable parts of a famous person’s statement are selectively quoted to be used as evidence supporting one’s own argument.

Conclusion: Between Pride in a Technology and Healthy Critique

The passion of the Rust community is the biggest driving force that has rapidly grown its ecosystem. However, it is sometimes necessary to be vigilant about whether that passion goes beyond an objective evaluation of the technology and leads to an exclusionary attitude or illogical arguments.

Great technology evolves further through comparison and criticism with other technologies. When pride in a specific technology can coexist with respect for other technologies and communities, our entire tech ecosystem can develop more healthily.