There are valid selling points to rust's safety features, but this just feels like "I use rust because I need my compiler to be my training wheels". More of a self-own than anything.
If I hired someone to paint my wall and they were saying "I'm not going to use any protection against splatters on the ground because I am that good and don't need training wheels", I would find that behavior very unprofessional and wouldn't want that person anywhere close to my wall.
I'm writing professional software I'll take any help from tooling that is available without compromising other aspects like performance. It also helps that Rust is much more productive than C++ overall.
About the self-own, my teams over the years lauded my low bug rate, be it in C++ or in Rust. I have a knack for correctness, hence why I prefer languages that make strong guarantees about it by construction to languages where I need to remember and regurgitate thousands of rules at every corner
I don't see what's wrong with having training wheels. In fact, it's not really training wheels, it's just safeguards, and we all need them as much as possible (with a good balance between this and usability of course)
The question is whether proportionally more bugs are found, and the indications are yeah, a lot more. There was an academic study of bugs in the Firefox codebase and they found that first time contributors were far more likely to introduce bugs in C++ than Rust proportionally, with the ratio getting tighter as people have more experience with the codebase. If you've got a team of people who've lived with your C++ codebase for a decade, they're perhaps not introducing more bugs than they would in Rust.
You're looking at a list of less than two dozen CVEs over several years across the Rust standard library and tooling. There are no CVEs raised for the analogous C++ behaviour, it's just accepted as normal.
No true Scotsman would use a compiler either, you should be writing programs in binary. Why, only a fool would use a computer to automate repetitive, error-prone tasks!
I heard for nearly two decades how type safety, const correctness, etc proved to create better programs in C++ than C. Now Rust could be viewed as the next iteration of that and it seems like many C++ developers like to try and paint this picture that the added type safety and correctness checks are somehow terrible. The mental gymnastics at play are a bit mind boggling really.
