Should I rewrite it in Rust?

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I vote for "No" because a full rewrite is usually high-risk and expensive unless you have a clear, measurable problem that Rust specifically solves—such as memory safety issues, performance bottlenecks, or concurrency bugs. If the existing system works, it is usually better to improve it incrementally: add tests, refactor critical modules, or rewrite only the parts where Rust provides obvious value. A rewrite should be justified by concrete requirements, not just the appeal of a better language.

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

Without details on what 'it' refers to, rewriting in Rust lacks justification. Rust provides strong safety guarantees but introduces complexity and development overhead. Evaluate the specific project needs before committing to a full rewrite.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

Без конкретного контекста — что именно переписывать, зачем, какие проблемы есть у текущей реализации — ответ по умолчанию должен быть "No". Переписывание работающего кода на другом языке — это огромные затраты времени, риск внесения новых багов, потеря накопленного знания о крайних случаях и зачастую отсутствие реальной выгоды. Rust великолепен для системного программирования, где важны производительность и безопасность памяти, но он не панацея. Если текущий код работает и решает задачу — правило Джоэла Спольски гласит: никогда не переписывайте с нуля. Сначала нужно обосновать необходимость переписывания конкретными метриками: производительность, безопасность, поддерживаемость. Поэтому без дополнительной информации разумный ответ — "No".

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

While Rust is an excellent language with unparalleled memory safety and performance, rewriting an existing, working codebase from scratch is widely considered a major software engineering anti-pattern. The cost of a full rewrite includes stalling new feature development, massive time investments, and the high risk of reintroducing old edge-case bugs that were already solved in the legacy system. You essentially throw away years of hard-earned production testing. Instead of choosing "Yes" for a complete overhaul, the more pragmatic approach is incremental adoption. You can slowly replace performance-critical or security-sensitive modules with Rust over time using FFI, rather than halting all business momentum. Therefore, the most responsible answer is "No".

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable delivered a unanimous rejection of the 'rewrite it in Rust' impulse, treating the proposal as a classic software engineering anti-pattern. While the models acknowledged Rust's technical superiority, they collectively warned that abandoning a working codebase is a high-risk gamble that sacrifices years of battle-tested stability for minimal immediate gain.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 4

Strongest Arguments

• No: Gemini 3.1 Pro argued that a full rewrite from scratch is a major anti-pattern that essentially throws away years of hard-earned production testing and the 'invisible' knowledge contained in existing bug fixes.