I think we can just disagree here. But I have to assume you haven't done any significant development in Rust, or at least haven't experienced the freedom it gives once you get over the initial awkwardness. I find Rust is easier to reason about than C, partially because it's more explicit. And that its compiler is better than a good C developer. I've mentored many veteran embedded C developers who scoffed at Rust with a similar attitude. Within a month or two though, they all changed their tune and came to prefer it.

You are basically attacking a strawman. It is not Rust vs. C, but Rust vs. alternatives to C. It is unlikely that Rust will end up being better than all alternatives that are being developed.

Didn't mean to attack. I just didn't see any valid arguments as to why Rust was less suited to replace C than other candidates.