Rust is great for pet projects. Otherwise, it is a big security risk for large commercial projects, since it lacks a useful standard library and any non trivial program needs to download a thousand crates to work.
What in particular do you see lacking in Rust that you can do in C++?
Runtime exceptions is what I consider a bad practice and it's spread everywhere in Java... Also the language evolutions are not really that good. So bringing errors/exception to the compilation time is a safety net.
Despite the fact that languages with managed memory safety bring a lot of potential for abusively high memory consumption, random GC stop the world situations and worse like oom.
Whenever I had to analyze a memory issue with an application it was no fun at all, despite the challenge.
The jvm specifications are so flawed considering security... Creating classes at runtime from a stream using reflections, which is totally spec compliant gave us log4shell. Why even load serialized classes from remote?! Fail by design.
So safety is still context sensitive and depends on the requirements. If you write bad software you can ignore some of the mentioned aspects, though it still lacks of 'security'
Just my 2 cents here
In the end of the day, C# had the same ideas of isolating unsafety that Rust has, and provides many safe wrappers around good libs, like Skia (SkiaSharp, very famous and widely used) for example. So those ideas are kinda market proven as well.