[spoiler]

As some people mentioned: I generally expect a higher standard of software when I see "build in Rust".

That expectation includes a few things such as stability and operational UX (ie how easy it is to run and maintain).

And these (in my experience as a Rust developer) stems from the fact that it's much easier to get the MVP and business logic taken care of becau I'm not bogged down by the drudgery of menial tasks that C++ imposes.

There's also a much lower "devtime" cost to adding UX in Rust than C++

Of course, this all holds equally true when comparing Rust to a higher level language like TypeScript and its rich ecosystem, but it does come at higher resources utilisation for the same task too (on average, maybe not always, especially after the code gets JITed).

[wejick]

While I can agree on the argument that rust offer many ergonomics and keep us away on many classes of security and memory management related issues. The quality of UX/DX is more defined by product and design requirements, not much to do with language of choice. Similar like restful api, good or bad is on the designer hand most of the time, not because it's implemented on some esoteric language.

[sodapopcan]

OP said "devtime cost", ie, time to implement. They made no mention or insinuation of quality.

[spoiler]

Yeah, but there's usually more time to put an emphasis on UX, as well as the fact that the ergonomics of the language again make it easier to implement the UX.