> Also, the quantity of teaching material and resources available to learn the language is currently overwhelmingly more abundant on the C++ side.
Quality over quantity. I'm a predominantly C and C++ developer, and the generic resources for C and especially C++ are horrible for the better part. This changes though when you look at what actual experts are putting out, either by themselves or by presenting at some convention, etc..., but these resources take knowing where to look, and many of them are useless in the process of learning the essentials, which everybody will screw up, because the language doesn't guide you, unlike Rust, which nannies you a lot (thankfully!!! you understand if you've written enough C++.)
> So if I want to bet safe in the development of a new system, I have to go with C++.
despite what I said above, C++ is prone to getting you in very unique scenarios if you're actually doing a new system (my anecdote), so you can't rely on people who aren't already skillful to even figure out that there's issues, even less how to address them. There's no guidance, really (unless you use C++Insights and hack stuff to compile-time.)
> In many years of coding C++, very rarely I experienced a stack overflow or segmentation fault. It is literally not an issue in every codebase I have worked with.
You espouse a pop understanding of software issues. These issues are not just magic, they happen for very exact reasons, this is why we can work against them happening in the first place.
I end my comment with saying that I'm not even a big fan of Rust, it's very specifically designed, I do not like the principles that Rust builds on, but I still disagree with your analysis.