I'd say the author brought a good point of why you should use Rust even for a CRUD app. (and yeah, I am a Rust fanatic and quite biased too). But hear me out.

> Over time, we grew the team considerably (increasing the engineering headcount by nearly 10x), and the size and complexity of the codebase grew considerably as well.

At this point, Rust is providing security and protection from technical debt. You have lots of new comers to the company/project and each one of them is adding or changing something. Developers being normal human beings have the tendency not to read documentation, old code or discuss with 100 engineers before building something.

Rust forces that on them, to a certain degree. Sure, you can move faster without Rust for now; but you'll pay the price later on. I am working on a company where we are doing microservices both in Rust and TypeScript. It's faster to get the job done in TypeScript; however, the cost is the maintenance later. The TS microservices breaks easily, regress much faster when someone modifies them, and are prone to invisible bugs. Rust is more solid in that front.

But in a world where speed of delivery and delivery itself (just deliver and deal with it later), Rust will definitively not shine. This is kicking the problem down to somebody else.

Another point: Because of that, Rust libraries are usually pretty solid. Comparing to the untangled mess in NPM, Rust will break down much less frequently.