> I was right: it was a risk, and it did slow us down. However, by being forced to use Rust, we ended up with a better design that was safer and easier to debug, and it was just as fast as the C++ equivalent. In the long run, it was a massive win. We’re all in love with Rust now, and 5 years later we’ve replaced nearly all of our non-Rust code (mostly Go) with faster, safer, and better-architected Rust equivalents.
Seems like a win?
What was being proof-of-concepted? What's the metric of success for introducing Rust in a case where no one was doing any sort of active work anyway?