What CTOs Actually Said When I Asked About Rust and LLMs

I recently wrote about why my team chose Rust for LLM-assisted development. The short version: the compiler catches what code review shouldn't have to. I posted the question to a CTO mailing list: what languages are you using for LLM-assisted development, and how do they hold up? Seven replies came in within 24 hours. The answers split into three camps. Camp 1: Rust works, and the strictness pays off Several respondents confirmed the same thing we see. One team enforces clippy at pedantic level with pre-commit checks and calls the results "fantastic." They also expose rust-analyzer LSP as tooling for their agents, which gives LLMs accurate documentation for the exact dependency version in use. Another CTO runs Rust and WASM both in browser and backend across multiple startups. No regrets. A third is building an AI Gateway in Rust using Claude Code. Their workflow: specs in Linear, agents write implementation plans, agents build and test, PRs merge automatically. We're heading in the sa