Rust is not a good example of a language which doesn't require discipline: on the contrary, it requires very much discipline and thinking deeply about lifetimes and resources. The difference to C++ (since that's what you've mentioned) is that the compiler double-checks everything at the end. The advance in programming language usability will not come from arcane tools like Rust, but from tools like Java, Python or Go which make previously complicated things simpler with e.g. garbage collection or coroutines.
Using "scale" is also misleading, because to use again your example C++ is a mainstream programming language and one of the most popular in the world. It towers above Rust by any thinkable metric related to scale - popularity, projects, developers, libraries, etc.
I do agree that discipline isn't enough... in the sense that one can't rely on discipline to achieve safety. This is a well known principle of safety engineering, which applies to all systems, not just SW or SW/HW systems. Discipline remains nevertheless essential, because it's one of the main things influencing the "human factor".
I admit I have a bias here, as I use Rust full-time, but Java, Python and Go are not what I would call languages that require less discipline. For instance, Go's error handling is entirely reliant on discipline! All of the meta-programming and runtime reflection nonsense requires discipline to not abuse and misuse. The worst codebases I have seen in Rust are significantly better than the worst codebases I have seen in languages like Java or Python, and maybe its because Rust programmers are more disciplined on average, or maybe its because the compiler requiring clean code forces less disciplined developers to produce better code.
Perhaps there are two camps here: (1) Reduce discipline by making developers no longer have to consider certain situations (garbage collection fits here) and (2) Reduce discipline by shifting that to the compiler (types fit in here)
> Rust is not a good example of a language which doesn't require discipline: on the contrary, it requires very much discipline and thinking deeply about lifetimes and resources.
My experience is completely different. I programmed a bit in rust recently. Nothing system level. Quite opposite.
I had multiple occasions when after succeeding to implement some part in Rust I thought to myself "wow, if I tried to do that in C++ I would have fallen in so many pit traps by now, that rust helped me avoid by restricting me in some ways".
And I'm very new to rust and I was just coding blindly just by powering through different approaches till one of those compiled.
"I can't use borrow to keep that? What's a borrow anyways? Let's just cram it in Rc whatever it is. I can't return this? Fiiine! I'll create it outside and pass it in."
And in the end it worked perfectly. No weird bugs to find. I felt like a caveman trying to bang rock into shape. And at no point rock cracked, split and or buried me under the rubble.
> ... the compiler double-checks everything at the end
This is exactly what makes it so that the programmer doesn't have to be disciplined. The Rust compiler will correct the lazy Rust programmer, while the C++ compiler will blithely do its best.
Using "scale" is also misleading, because to use again your example C++ is a mainstream programming language and one of the most popular in the world. It towers above Rust by any thinkable metric related to scale - popularity, projects, developers, libraries, etc.
I do agree that discipline isn't enough... in the sense that one can't rely on discipline to achieve safety. This is a well known principle of safety engineering, which applies to all systems, not just SW or SW/HW systems. Discipline remains nevertheless essential, because it's one of the main things influencing the "human factor".