公司Rust团队全员被裁，只因把服务写得「太稳定」：“项目0故障、0报警，那养着3个Rust工程师没用啊”

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the paradox of a successful Rust project leading to its eventual abandonment within a company due to management changes and a lack of understanding of its value [2][12][15]. Group 1: Project Background and Development - The project took place in a rapidly growing unicorn startup that primarily used Ruby on Rails and Node.js, with no initial use of high-performance languages like Rust or Go [3]. - The team decided to develop a real-time service to support 100,000 concurrent users, leading to a comparison of different programming languages including Rust, Elixir, Ruby, and Node.js [4][10]. - Rust was ultimately chosen for its flexibility and performance, despite initial bugs, and the team completed the MVP in just two weeks [8][9][10]. Group 2: Performance and Stability - The Rust version outperformed others in speed and memory usage, successfully supporting 100,000 concurrent users without issues [10][11]. - After a month of stable operation, the service was put into maintenance mode as company strategy shifted, leading to the disbanding of the Rust development team [12][13]. Group 3: Management Changes and Consequences - A new management team, unsatisfied with the perceived lack of activity from the Rust service, decided to phase out Rust in favor of more familiar technologies like Ruby and Node.js [13][14]. - The decision resulted in the departure of three experienced Rust engineers, which was seen as a missed opportunity for the company to leverage Rust's capabilities further [15]. - Ultimately, the management's decision to rewrite the Rust service in Node.js led to complications and performance issues, highlighting the challenges of maintaining high concurrency with Node.js [16][17]. Group 4: Industry Insights and Reactions - The article sparked discussions among developers who shared similar experiences of successful projects being undervalued or abandoned due to management decisions [17][18]. - Many industry professionals noted that such occurrences are common in companies as they grow and management changes, often stifling innovation [18].