Cooked: Rust Evangelism Strike Force

The linguistic anthropology of programming languages we never asked for but desperately needed. C as Latin? Spot on—ancient, foundational, and nobody actually uses it conversationally anymore. The C++ as French comparison is *chef's kiss*. Needlessly complex rules that somehow make you feel inferior for not mastering them? Oui, c'est vrai. JavaScript as English hits too close to home—everyone cobbles together enough to get by, nobody follows the rules, and it somehow powers the entire world despite being a complete mess. And that Python burn... created to be easy but its users "could benefit from a shower once in a while." I've been in enough Python conferences to confirm this isn't entirely fiction. The Rust/Russian comparison might be the most accurate—passionate evangelists absolutely convinced their way is the only path to salvation. Memory safety or gulag, comrade!

One brave Rust enthusiast standing alone against the massive horde of C and C++ programmers, boldly declaring "Yes, you all are wrong." It's basically the programming language equivalent of bringing a memory-safe knife to a buffer overflow gunfight. The audacity! The sheer confidence of that one Rust dev thinking their fancy ownership model and zero-cost abstractions will convince thousands of battle-hardened pointer-arithmetic veterans who've been manually managing memory since before Rust was a speck of oxidation on Graydon Hoare's keyboard.

Congratulations! You've found the only relationship where emotional abuse is actually a feature, not a bug. The Rust compiler treats you like garbage, tells you everything is your fault, and makes you feel utterly inadequate—but unlike your ex, it's deliberately doing this to make you a better person. That error message showing you exactly where you messed up? That's not passive-aggressive—that's just aggressive-aggressive. And that warm fuzzy feeling when your code finally compiles? It's Stockholm syndrome with benefits. At least the compiler is consistent and actually helps you grow, unlike certain humans who can't be tamed even with unsafe{} blocks. Honestly, it's the healthiest toxic relationship you'll ever have.

Oh look, another Rust evangelist has cornered you at the water cooler. The number "18464028364921" isn't random—it's approximately how many times you've heard someone preach about Rust's memory safety while you're just trying to write your C++ in peace. That gun-to-head feeling is the exact sensation when someone starts their fifth lecture about how Rust prevents null pointer dereferences while you're mentally calculating how much time you've wasted listening instead of shipping code. Sure, memory safety is nice, but so is being left alone with your segmentation faults and pointer arithmetic.

The classic "Flex Tape" solution meme, but make it programming! Some manager somewhere is watching performance tank because of "mediocre developers" and "slow code due to inefficient algorithms" when suddenly—BAM!—someone slaps on "REWRITING TO RUST" like it's magical duct tape that'll fix everything. Spoiler alert: Throwing a trendy language at architectural problems is like putting racing stripes on a broken car. Sure, your memory management will be safer, but those same mediocre developers will just write mediocre Rust code instead. The compiler will scream, deadlines will extend, and somewhere a project manager's eye is twitching violently.

The senior developer generation humoring the Gen Z developers who won't stop evangelizing about Rust and Go. "Yes dear, memory safety is revolutionary. No, we don't need to rewrite our entire codebase that's been running fine for 15 years." Meanwhile, the production server running on a 2005 PHP script held together with duct tape and prayers continues to outperform everything else.