Leaving the LLM writing aside, this argument just doesn't hold together. It wants to say 'Rust has these flaws, therefore it will not replace C/C++', but doesn't make (or doesn't realize it is necessary to make) the intermediary claim 'C/C++ do not have these flaws/Rust does not provide enough other attractive features to overcome these flaws'.

It's also engaged in an odd two-step where it conflates C and C++, championing C's simplicity in contrast to Rust's complexity... and then just doesn't address C++'s complexity, as though it's interchangeable with C. The notion that Rust developers are running into quirks with tooling and this is reason not to use it in preference to C++ is ludicrous.