You are basically asserting that performance & correctness are beyond the reach of developers who build systems in other languages. So based on this I suppose all systems developed in other languages are either performing subpar and/or are incorrect?
"Is the pain worth it" is the question. My 42 years of professional development tells me the answer is no. (I lean towards programming pleasure and not pain). YMMV.
I think the idea is that performance and correctness are easier to achieve with rust. Once you get over the initial mountain of learning. The mountain is a different height for each person.
I would say most systems are either slower or less correct, yes. The nice thing about being a developer is that these costs are mostly hidden from us. The business pays for more compute if you churn out slow code, and churning out bugs just increases your job security.
Imagine if you had to pay for the performance loss or production bugs directly though...
For the rare case where the small speedup is otherwise worth the lower producitivty of Rust, it can still be a worse choice because the you have a disadvantage in iteration speed to rework the code for a faster problem solving strategy / algorithm.
The strong and static type system makes refactoring and iteration pace extremely predictable in Rust. And it's often quick to do as well.
With dynamic languages you can pretend you're done in an hour and then endure a lot of production bugs. That's not being more productive than Rust. That's playing pretend that a complexity doesn't exist.
On the contrary, I find the speedup due to rust to be quite large and the productivity to be quite acceptable. Refactoring for me is so much easier when I can rely on the compiler to catch so much.
"Is the pain worth it" is the question. My 42 years of professional development tells me the answer is no. (I lean towards programming pleasure and not pain). YMMV.