Eh, carcinization is a better ontological fit. Many separate things evolving into the same structure, versus the process of losing electrons and/or structurally degrading.
And it's the version I've actually heard used (multiple times) before now - having looked up 'carcinisation', I assume that comes via 'rustacean' (cf. crustacean), which makes it a bit more contrived and then sort of implies the result is a Rust developer, not Rust itself?
Makes more sense to me that a language/framework/etc. would 'oxidise' to Rust, and someone learning/getting hooked on Rust would 'carcinise'.
But this is all silly and doesn't matter anyway, ha!
Surely oxidation is better than carcinization. And rust evolving to Java would be mineralization? Or maybe germination?