Rust is the latest shiny object in the programming world. It promises memory safety, performance that rivals C, and a strict compiler that catches bugs before they happen. All that sounds great, right? Well, slow down. The truth is, you don’t need Rust—at least not yet. Most developers and teams are jumping on the Rust hype train for the wrong reasons, and here’s why it’s overkill for your project.
1. You Don't Need System-Level Performance
The biggest selling point of Rust is its performance. It’s often compared to C and C++ in terms of speed, but let’s be honest—99% of applications don't need to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the hardware.
Are you building something that absolutely requires low-level memory manipulation, like an operating system, real-time embedded systems, or a high-frequency trading platform? If not, you don’t need Rust. Most web applications, microservices, and business logic systems are perfectly fine with languages like Python, JavaScript, or even Go. They’re faster to develop in, easier to maintain, and good enough performance-wise. You’re not building for NASA’s Mars Rover; you’re building another CRUD app or API that just needs to handle some basic traffic.
Rebuttal: "But Rust gives you both performance and safety!"
Sure, Rust is designed to provide safety with its ownership system, borrowing rules, and strict compiler checks. But how often are you really running into memory issues in high-level languages? Unless your app needs to manage memory manually to avoid frequent garbage collection pauses, you’re solving a problem that doesn’t exist.
For most projects, performance bottlenecks are found in inefficient algorithms, I/O operations, or database queries—not in language-level memory safety issues.
2. Steep Learning Curve Isn't Worth It
Rust is not easy to learn. Its memory ownership model and borrowing rules are a headache, especially for developers coming from garbage-collected languages. There’s a reason people have coined the term “fighting the borrow checker.” It’s notoriously unforgiving for beginners and can slow your development to a crawl.
In contrast, languages like Python, JavaScript, and even Go are far more approachable. They allow for faster iteration and prototyping, which is what most businesses need. You’ll be able to deliver features and fix bugs quicker without having to climb a steep learning curve just to understand how the compiler works.
Rebuttal: "But once you learn it, Rust makes you a better developer!"
Maybe. But you could also spend that time learning more relevant tools and frameworks for your project. By the time you’ve mastered Rust, you could have already shipped multiple features or improved your skills in areas that directly impact your business needs.
3. Tooling Ecosystem Is Limited
Despite Rust’s growing popularity, its ecosystem is still not on par with older, more established languages. Sure, the Rust community is active, but compare it to the libraries, frameworks, and third-party tools available for Python, JavaScript, or Java. Those ecosystems are battle-tested, massive, and reliable. If you need a specific library, chances are you’ll find one in those ecosystems, and it will be actively maintained.
With Rust, you’re more likely to encounter half-baked crates (Rust’s package libraries) or niche tools that are either in beta or poorly documented. When you’re trying to move fast, the last thing you want is to be blocked because the ecosystem hasn’t matured enough to meet your needs.
Rebuttal: "But Rust's ecosystem is growing fast!"
Sure, the ecosystem is growing, but it’s still young. Unless your project directly benefits from the bleeding-edge features of Rust, you’re better off sticking with a language that has robust, well-documented, and widely used tools.
4. Most Teams Don’t Have Rust Expertise
Let’s be real—how many developers on your team are proficient in Rust? Do you want to introduce a language that’s not widely understood by your engineers, or worse, your future hires? A typical dev team already knows JavaScript, Python, or Java, so adding Rust to the mix means either upskilling your team or hiring new, harder-to-find talent. That’s time and money down the drain.
The cost of onboarding Rust often outweighs the potential benefits. It's a niche language, and finding developers who are comfortable and experienced with it is still a challenge.
Rebuttal: "But Rust adoption is increasing—everyone's learning it!"
Sure, more people are learning Rust, but until it’s as widespread as languages like Python or Java, hiring Rust developers is going to remain a bottleneck. And training your current team? Good luck keeping productivity up while they’re busy wrestling with the borrow checker.
When You Actually Do Need Rust
So, when does Rust make sense? Here are a few scenarios where Rust might actually be worth the effort:
Performance-critical applications: You’re building something that needs bare-metal speed and fine-grained memory control, like game engines, low-latency networking systems, or real-time processing.
System-level programming: You’re writing an OS kernel, device drivers, or something that directly interacts with hardware.
Security-sensitive applications: If you’re working on cryptography, blockchain technology, or anything where memory safety and avoiding bugs is crucial, Rust’s guarantees could save you from catastrophic vulnerabilities.
Concurrency-heavy applications: Rust’s ownership model shines in multi-threaded applications, making it easier to write safe concurrent code.
Conclusion
Rust is a fantastic language, but let’s not kid ourselves—it’s not necessary for most projects. If your app isn’t squeezing every drop of performance from the hardware or managing sensitive memory, you can confidently stick with a more established, developer-friendly language. Unless you’re building the next groundbreaking system-level software, you don’t need Rust.