重写太成功反遭封杀！CTO 用 6 个月把 Rust 从神坛拽下，理由竟是 “它让我们显得太优秀”

Core Viewpoint - The company initially adopted Rust for its advantages in speed, safety, and modernity, but ultimately banned its use due to the discomfort it caused within the organization by exposing inefficiencies and raising performance expectations [1][22][28]. Group 1: Initial Adoption of Rust - Rust was seen as an ideal choice for the company, promising rapid development and safety features [2][6]. - The first service rewritten in Rust was a high-traffic application that had significant memory leak issues, which Rust effectively resolved, leading to impressive performance metrics [7][17]. Group 2: Consequences of Using Rust - The development speed increased dramatically, with new features being developed in just three months, which was deemed unacceptable by management [10]. - The ease of hiring Rust developers led to an influx of highly qualified candidates, making existing engineers feel inadequate [12][14]. - The internal toolchain was found lacking compared to Rust's ecosystem, highlighting organizational inefficiencies [15][16]. Group 3: Organizational Response - The CTO held a meeting questioning if the company would still be bogged down by bugs and technical debt without Rust, leading to a decision to ban its use [20][21]. - The decision was framed as a response to Rust's ability to expose the company's inefficiencies and elevate performance standards that the organization was not ready to meet [22][28]. Group 4: Aftermath and Reflection - Following the ban, 90% of services reverted to using Go, which was seen as adequately slow and safe, aligning with the company's strategic approach to managing technical debt [23]. - The company expressed regret over the decision only when stability was desired, indicating a complex relationship with the efficiency Rust brought [25][26].