For me, "built in Rust" can be a real marketing argument. Indeed, Rust is a language that has proved its safety in the past. Building a technical product in Rust guarantees stability and safety (no memory issues in general) and performance (no garbage collector issue), so it brings more trust to the users.
Also I would recommend not conflating no GC and performance. There are lots of reasons for Rust being fast and many have nothing to do with no GC. The main reasons a lot of languages with GC are slower is due to allocating on the heap as opposed to the stack, and in general Rust does a lot of static linking and the compiler has the full amount of information to optimize calls without needing to move stuff to the heap. That's the main perf win.
Actually there are times when GC is more efficient than than automatically freeing memory because GC can batch cleanup work.
However, I prefer having a few unsafe blocks that I can review carefully than a single one encapsulating the primary function.
Where can I read about these details of software performance? Can you recommend a book?
It's worth noting that while you can catch these kind of errors in C, very little software actually does so. The only software I'm aware of that does this is SQLite. Your C software will more than likely crash in OOM and StackOverflow situations too.
Tbh C would have never crossed my mind as an alternative for Rust in this case. I guess that says something.