Rust has fewer memory CVEs than C/C++ — but that's not the whole story. My analysis of what that number actually says, what it doesn't, and how to turn it into a real technical decision.
Three deadlocks in production, all with the same face: the service stopped responding — no error, no panic, no log. What I found while diagnosing them changed how I think about lock design in async Rust.
434 points on HN argue that Async Rust is still a glorified MVP. I replicated every concrete criticism against reproducible example code: executor leaks, cancellation safety, Pin hell. My conclusion is more uncomfortable than the original post.
489 + 506 points on HN. Bun ports to Rust and everyone has a take. I ran the benchmarks on my real stack before opening my mouth. The uncomfortable result: the underlying language matters less than the hype suggests.
648 points on HN about bugs Rust doesn't prevent. I took the list, ran it against reproducible production-style examples, and found exactly what they promised wouldn't be there. Rust gives you memory safety, not logic safety — and that difference matters more than the community admits.
I've burned myself with Rust and spent posts deep in TypeScript patterns. I'm the worst possible person to be objective here. I read every line anyway — and found three design decisions I think are wrong, and one that's genuinely brilliant.
I read a proposal for a language designed to evolve its own syntax and couldn't stop thinking about the three languages I loved, mastered, and had to abandon. Not because they were bad. Because the ecosystem left first.
I had Rust code in production with mutexes. It deadlocked at 2am. Zero compiler warnings. When Surelock hit Hacker News with 214 points, I opened the repo and finally understood why the borrow checker gives you false confidence about concurrency.
32 years in the dev trenches. Here I write what I learned, what I broke, and what nobody tells you in the tutorials.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.