It's naive to think that only one set of trade-offs is the best one, because you can always argue for infinite process and caution. If this Rust rewrite goes r

It's naive to think that only one set of trade-offs is the best one, because you can always argue for infinite process and caution. If this Rust rewrite goes relatively smoothly, you are completely wrong about the balance of trade-offs, but you probably won't admit that because the person advocating for more process sees themself in a zero-risk win-win position: A. The subject fails, thus you win because they should have used more process and caution. B. The subject succeeds without more process and caution, but they should have were they a professional like you. I see this kind of thing in the comments on social media if, idk, someone died on a hike. Psh, that's why I never walk anywhere without a week's worth of water, not even to TJ Maxx. Psh, they should have had a satellite phone; I always have one on me just in case. Psh, their satellite phone broke and they didn't have a backup one? Always carry two. Funnily enough, your claim is worse than those examples because, unlike them, you don't even know if the rewrite failed yet. The Redditors at least waited for the person to die on the hike before they chimed in with riskless feedback from afar.