As someone who does SMD work on hardware using microscopes I would not be able to fix these PCBs (or that analogy) using a hammer.

This is like saying "Uhh mountains are unsafe, I don't get why they put up a handrail at that crowded vantage point over there".

Whether a tool/safety mesure is appropriate is always is about context. I have literally met zero people who work on security or safety critical (e.g. embedded, networking, ...) C code who do not welcome the guarantees Rust brings. It is a complete no-brainer. The ones that complain are the I am a genius who never makes mistakes"-crowd. So precisely the people you should never* let anywhere near anything safety critical.

I write C and I delved into Rust and I can tell you that I trust a vomitted out piece of Rust I wrote more than a piece of C I carefully vetted — and there are rational resons for that. The things that can go wrong at any given point in a C code are more, the ways they can go undetected are more and so on.

Anybody who claims otherwise has not put in the legwork themselves.

Rust is incredibly rigid and stringent by default and if something compiles you can be sure that it now just needs it's logic tested (which is a joy to do in that language).

I dabble in Rust, no genuine dislike of the language but the awkward syntax is what keeps me writing modern C++ as a middle-ground between the scary badlands of archaic C and the triple wrapped rigid Rustlands.

Though, as you mention, if required I will gladly write it if the situation warrants such a tool. Any suggestions for idiomatic testing?