> I tend to believe it actually happened because engineers with enough political clout decided they wanted everybody to change to their preferred language, not

> I tend to believe it actually happened because engineers with enough political clout decided they wanted everybody to change to their preferred language, not truly because of technical reasons, but because they just wanted to be paid to write in a cool language. I would say it's cool _because_ of the technical reasons, though! You make it seem like people are inventing technical reasons to make rust seem cool. I could make a long "technical reasons" list why I would personally prefer to work in Rust, but it boils down that it makes me more productive, and the code more performant with fewer gotchas and less sacrifices/compromises (compared to say C++ or C). Do I think Rust is cool? I guess... But that which attracted me to Rust was there already; I didn't have to make it up[1]. I understand not every language is for everyone. I've had colleagues dismiss rust simply because they prefer C++ (and we work with C++). Some will even agree Rust is better when presented with technical reasons, but still not like Rust "just because." > I wonder why they didn’t try doing things like putting the LRU cache into foreign, unmanaged memory to avoid garbage collecting it. Easier said than done, but why not? I write Go intermittently since I participate a little in the Kubernetes ecosystem, and haven't dwelled that deeply into it. How would this be done without reaching for C, though? Or would it be fitting to swap languages in this "subset" of the implementation? [1]: I feel like "make up" is the wrong phrase here, but I can't think of a better one right now. I guess what I want to say that Rust's "cool" reputation is well deserved. I don't think the technical reasons are made-up to serve as office-politics cannon fodder.