In the high-stakes arena of systems programming, Rust once gleamed as the safe alternative to C and C++, promising memory safety without sacrificing speed. But as 2025 unfolds, a chorus of disillusionment is growing louder. A viral blog post by developer Bykozy, published November 23 on his personal site, declares ‘Rust is a disappointment,’ igniting debates across X and tech forums. Bykozy, who once championed the language, now lambasts its core flaws: an ownership model that fights developers, a compiler that’s punishingly slow, and ecosystem immaturity that belies its decade-plus maturity.

The post details Rust’s ‘several core problems,’ starting with the borrow checker—a hallmark feature meant to prevent data races at compile time. Bykozy argues it creates ‘fighting the language’ scenarios, where simple tasks like graph traversals demand workarounds like Rc<RefCell<T>>, eroding ergonomics and performance. ‘There are many reasons to hate C++, and I hate C++ too,’ he writes, but Rust hasn’t delivered the promised paradise.

Compile times draw particular ire. Bykozy notes projects ballooning to hours, blaming monomorphization of generics and dependency bloat via Cargo. This resonates with X users like @oxcrowx, who posted on November 14, ‘Majority of rust’s slowness comes from excessive monomorphisation of generic code, and building 20 different versions of the same library.’

Rust’s Safety Mirage Cracks

Rust’s ownership and borrowing rules, enforced by the borrow checker, were hailed as revolutionary. Yet Bykozy calls them a ‘core problem,’ forcing unnatural code structures. For cyclic data or multiple mutable references—common in graphs—developers resort to interior mutability, which he says undermines safety guarantees. X developer @zack_overflow echoed this on January 26, noting, ‘If your code doesn’t [fit the borrow checker model]… you have to use workarounds with perf/ergonomics tradeoffs.’

Even veterans struggle. @devongovett, after ‘a few hundred thousand lines over several years,’ tweeted on November 17, 2024, ‘I still struggle with the borrow checker constantly!’ This aligns with a 2018 InfoWorld survey where users cited frustration with safety features, a sentiment persisting into 2025 per recent X threads.

The Rust team’s response has been measured. The official Rust Blog on September 10 detailed compiler optimizations, but critics like Bykozy dismiss them as insufficient for large codebases.

Performance Promises Unfulfilled

Bykozy highlights benchmark discrepancies: Rust lags C++ in some cases due to optimizer shortcomings and unsafe code necessities. He points to ‘panic=abort’ as a crutch hiding issues, contrasting it with C++’s noexcept. On X, @FloatngUpstream posted November 23, ‘Rust’s borrowing and ownership model already shows cracks after 10 years. We are lying to the borrow checker about interior mutability everywhere.’

Ecosystem woes compound this. Cargo’s dependency resolution leads to rebuilds, with Bykozy decrying the lack of proper modules akin to Go. A Medium article by Aaron 0928 in January detailed major projects rejecting Rust, citing complexity.

Recent surveys underscore the shift. The Rust Blog’s 2025 State of Rust Survey, launched November 17, seeks feedback amid hype fatigue, while a Medium post from June asks, ‘Rust Was the Future — So Why’s It Fading Into the Background in 2025?’

Industry Adoption Hits Roadblocks

High-profile setbacks fuel skepticism. Linux kernel Rust integration has progressed slowly, plagued by borrow checker limitations in kernel contexts. Bykozy notes platform gaps, like incomplete WebAssembly support. @IceSolst raged on X July 23, ‘The language is atrocious and abstruse… all vulnerabilities are quite literally skill issues.’

Critics like those in a IT Pro article from February 2024 fear growing complexity, with async Rust dubbed a ‘second language.’ @workingjubilee quipped in 2023 (still resonant), ‘~80% of [Rust’s appeal] is Cargo just fucking works… C++ people could… arrive at Rust 2015 but WITHOUT cargo.’

Defenders counter with wins: Rust’s TIOBE rise and use in Firefox, AWS. Yet Bykozy argues these mask deeper issues, predicting Rust as a ‘niche tool’ like Ada.

Voices from the Trenches

X lit up post-Bykozy. @BrodieOnLinux on November 20 acknowledged, ‘the borrow checker makes some design patterns very obtuse, there is a small performance overhead.’ @teromee added November 21, ‘instead of rewriting everything… pay down technical debt.’

Older critiques persist, like a ari.lt post from December 2024 calling Rust flawed after years. ZDNet in 2019 noted obstacles early on.

The JetBrains RustRover Blog in May 2025 optimistically explores trends, but adoption surveys show plateauing enthusiasm.

Paths Forward Amid Backlash

Rust 1.80+ brings incremental compilation tweaks, but Bykozy demands radical changes like linear types or regions overhaul—unlikely soon. Community forks or alternatives like Zig gain traction. @canoozie on X November 19 noted hypocrisy in safety claims: ‘Rust helps you think about memory safety… but bugs can and will happen.’

For industry insiders, Rust’s 2025 inflection point demands reckoning: refine the borrow checker, slash compile times, mature the stdlib. Without it, the language risks Bykozy’s prophecy—another promising systems tongue confined to zealots.