1. Rust was able to get into Linux core that C++ never managed to do. 1.5 million lines of code on Android was replaced with Rust. Feels like you're a bit too late calling it a niche language.

2. You forget to mention absolutely terrible and disorganized progress on package management and build systems, code styles, etc. And there are no signs that this will ever be fixed.

3. You mentioned great features coming in C++ while the most popular standard is still C++11 while it is now 2024.

4. Rust is safe by default. It is actually easier to write safer code compromising performance than the opposite. It is more about priorities.

I personally think that borrowing for everything makes rust very difficult for complex object relationships. Many hard-code rust developers praise ECS while for Rust it is essentially a hack that switches off borrowing by managing entities as array indices.

The point is, that no language is perfect but it seems you did not use Rust long enough to provide more practical arguments.

In my opinion, Rust vs C++ is like x86 vs ARM. x86 is older, wider used and more performant while the second is much more power efficient. Past years x86 focused on power efficiency while ARM on raw performance. Now they are comparable in performance but ARM is still more efficient and cheaper.

C++ is older and much more widely used, much more flexible, and now focuses on safety while Rust is quite stiff and opinionated and now focusing on simplicity. But does not look like the C++ community is united enough to fix the ecosystem around C++. So, even though, I will not trash C++ like you did with Rust, I think C++ is in real danger, especially after it was officially recommended not to be used by the US government.