The biggest flaw in Rust's marketing, as far as I can tell, isn't noting that it's safer than C or C++, or that it's a systems programming language, it's the simultaneous (implicit and explicit) confrontational bashing on languages that aren't Rust, but especially C and C++, and the egregious ego-inflating comparisons (x-in-Rust is y-times-as-fast-as-x-in-C-or-C++).
I've only written a few relatively small ("toy") applications to completion in Rust. I have one application I'm working on in Rust at work, which is in an advanced stage of development and that will replace a significant part of our production-deployed current implementation (in python). I also have one application I'm working on in my spare time that is not a toy (although it is for entertainment purposes). My view is that for a good number of tasks Rust is nicer to use than C++, and probably I'd reach for Rust before C++ in instances where I'd normally choose C++. It would depend heavily on the context when comparing Rust vs. C. The safety argument simply doesn't register most of the time.
No, this isn't because "I don't have problems writing safe C or C++ code," (although I certainly expect the above comment to be misinterpreted uncharitably in this way) this is because the kinds of safety guarantees Rust provides simply don't register on the list of reasons to explicitly choose it (over C or C++) in a large number of contexts. Even in contexts where it does matter, the current state of affairs is that those terrible languages, C and C++, run the world well enough. There are some pretty good examples of terrible safety flaws that may have been avoided with Rust's guarantees. These aren't universally applicable to all problems to be solved in programming.
My advice, for all it's worth, is to stop hyper-focusing on safety and definitely stop the oblique insults to C, C++ (and other languages--some notable GC'd ones come to mind, from recent posts and comments I've seen around here). Rust has so much more to offer than an implementation detail (which is what "safety" is).
I've only written a few relatively small ("toy") applications to completion in Rust. I have one application I'm working on in Rust at work, which is in an advanced stage of development and that will replace a significant part of our production-deployed current implementation (in python). I also have one application I'm working on in my spare time that is not a toy (although it is for entertainment purposes). My view is that for a good number of tasks Rust is nicer to use than C++, and probably I'd reach for Rust before C++ in instances where I'd normally choose C++. It would depend heavily on the context when comparing Rust vs. C. The safety argument simply doesn't register most of the time.
No, this isn't because "I don't have problems writing safe C or C++ code," (although I certainly expect the above comment to be misinterpreted uncharitably in this way) this is because the kinds of safety guarantees Rust provides simply don't register on the list of reasons to explicitly choose it (over C or C++) in a large number of contexts. Even in contexts where it does matter, the current state of affairs is that those terrible languages, C and C++, run the world well enough. There are some pretty good examples of terrible safety flaws that may have been avoided with Rust's guarantees. These aren't universally applicable to all problems to be solved in programming.
My advice, for all it's worth, is to stop hyper-focusing on safety and definitely stop the oblique insults to C, C++ (and other languages--some notable GC'd ones come to mind, from recent posts and comments I've seen around here). Rust has so much more to offer than an implementation detail (which is what "safety" is).