Rust's difficulty is what sets it apart
The claims of greater productivity with Rust (compared to C++) may be due to the large number of modules which can be downloaded and used seamlessly. But there are plenty of class libraries for C++ too.
However, I think one the reasons why Rust appears to shine is because It is harder to code. It deters weaker programmers. Better programmers are more productive both in terms of what they produce and in terms of what they can share with others to improve the productivity of others.
When interviewing job applicants for C++ roles I quickly realised there were two sorts of programmers who claimed to be C++ coders. The better category of these programmers were those who fully understood the language and the underlying memory model on which it depended on.
The other category were those that were happy developing within a C++ framework that other better programmers had set up. These C++ frameworks can hide many more complicated aspects of design from these types of developers. For example, the use of smart pointers to save these developers from worrying about memory issues. If these coders were ever to write new classes, they would be 'boiler-plate' code from a standard prototype for the framework.
Within organisations these types of coders can write mediocre code protected by C++'s "smoke and mirrors". This code is potentially dangerous if they fall foul of one of C++'s many subtleties. In interviews I would try and separate these types of candidates by asking them to write a simple string class. This would give an insight as to whether they thought about memory management or thread safety.
Rust will give you a really bad experience if you do not understand the basics. Discouraging bad programmers is a good thing. However, I would be surprised if Rust ever becomes close to being the most widely-used language. There are too many bad coders out there ....