Why I Needed Rust

The declarative model was never the problem. Validation was — and it always arrived at deploy time.

Jesús Pérez
Rustikon 2026, Warsaw. Nearly four decades of automating infrastructure, compressed into one complaint: the failure shows up at deploy time, never before. The deck walks the three stages that got us here — local, networks, containers and CI/CD — and then spends its middle on a restaurant, because the analogy holds all the way down: the guest declares, the waiter validates, the kitchen executes, and the truth mutates at every step of the chain. The waiter IS the orchestrator, and the one who should catch an impossible order before it reaches the kitchen. From there the argument turns concrete: «we don't have mushrooms» is configuration drift, and Rust's Option type is the language-level refusal to pretend an ingredient exists — a substitution must be explicit, traced and re-authorized, never silent. Three questions the usual toolchain does not answer — why we wait for things to break, whether the declaration is even consistent with what is possible, whether CI/CD without semantic validation is more than continuous hope — and then Rust and Nickel against each one: schemas validated when the config compiles, a typed source of truth, traits as providers, contracts, a dependency graph, typed remediation. The measured part: MTTR from over 30 minutes to under 5. The part that cannot be measured, and the reason for the title: fear. Not evangelism — the tools were not the problem, and neither were the languages. The paradigm was.

▶  Watch the talk

1 / 35
Was this useful? Rate it
Got something to add? Tell me what you think, what you'd suggest, or whether we should keep exploring this topic.
· reads

We use cookies to help this site function, understand service usage, and support marketing efforts. Cookie Policy for more info.