没有防御性编程，Rust服务稳定到不需要维护，然后老板说不需要我们了...

Core Insights - The article illustrates the paradox of success in technology, where a highly efficient system can lead to the perception that fewer developers are needed, ultimately jeopardizing the use of that technology [1][29]. Group 1: Technical Debt - The company had a traditional tech stack and needed to develop a real-time service to support 100,000 concurrent users, displaying user activity information [2]. - The initial choice of Ruby was deemed inadequate, prompting discussions on technology selection [3]. Group 2: Technology Selection Battle - The development team proposed using Rust, but management was cautious and requested comparisons with other languages [4][5]. - Concept validation versions were created using Elixir, Rust, Ruby, and Node.js, with Rust being developed by a novice [5][6]. Group 3: Performance Results - The performance results showed Rust as the fastest and most memory-efficient option, followed by Elixir, Node.js, and Ruby [8][10]. - The final decision favored Rust not only for its performance but also for its versatility in future applications [10]. Group 4: Rapid Development - Due to time constraints, a single developer with Rust experience was tasked to lead the project, collaborating closely with the team [11][13]. - The architecture was designed to handle 100,000 connections efficiently, utilizing a WebSocket-based API and in-memory data storage [14]. Group 5: Performance Challenges - The service performed stably under the expected load, but management later decided to shift it to maintenance mode, leading to a lack of oversight [16]. - The service was initially successful, but as the company expanded, management questioned the need for Rust developers due to the service's stability [19][20]. Group 6: Management Decisions - The new director's perspective led to the departure of experienced Rust developers, as they were deemed unnecessary due to the service's lack of issues [22]. - The decision to abandon Rust in favor of more mainstream technologies raised concerns about the existing Rust service's future [23]. Group 7: Node.js Rewrite Attempt - The attempt to rewrite the service in Node.js failed due to its single-threaded nature, which could not handle the required load [24][25]. - The company resorted to using a third-party service, which also proved inadequate [26]. Group 8: Lessons Learned - The Rust service continued to operate effectively but without a dedicated maintenance team, highlighting the risks of having a highly efficient system [28][29]. - The article concludes that sometimes, a less-than-perfect system may be perceived as safer, emphasizing the impact of management changes on technical decisions [29].