Been in the software game quite some time (Fortran was the hot new replacement language for assembly and COBOL)...
Long experience has shown that making it possible for monkeys to write code just gets you monkey code. Drag-drop anything, semi-automated error checking, frameworks that force you into models that may not be correct for the task some idiot tries to force fit and so forth.
Java (among others) was going to fix that - no pointers to dangle, so everything is a reference? (if you know CS you'll know why this is funny) - and GC that can hang your process for some time whenever it feels like it, so forget any hard deadline...
OLE, ActiveX, DCOM - code in your dsta. What a howler! What a great safety feature! /s
The truth is, sad as it is for managers wanting low pay grunts to do important things is that there is no answer to the problem that actually works (see tech solutions to social issues). Even the monkey and Shakespeare model requires someone to notice when the monkey writes a sonnet.
I still believe that it's better to know how to code, design with memory/object/pointer lifetime and scope in mind from the start, and if that's too hard for you - get out of the room or work on the design till you know and can code those types of issues FIRST. No new without the delete (and they better match in number) or whatever construct you use (we did a lot with the stack which eliminates a lot of that, and by gawd a simple text search will find strcpy so you can replace it with strncpy over a large code base proactively). Of course memory issues are just one of the areas one should be getting right in the design before the first line of code goes in.
Horses for courses is part of the design process, one size never did fit all. Language fad du jour is not going to fix it for you. If it could you wouldn't need programmers at all - a definition put into the computer would result in perfect or at least good code...so really, that's the problem, making that definition correct and in enough detail.
Coding at the terminal should be punishable. We banned it at my outfit right off since we had to support what we wrote...coding is the easy part and pretending you don't need a design doesn't make that true - and no one I've ever met designs better in front of a terminal than on paper/whiteboard/whatever with brainstorming and red-teaming. It's faster to get it right before building - just like we use architects and plans for construction of other important things.
Rust might be nice, but like all others, it's fad of the day, not "the all singing all dancing answer to all problems". For one-off code, one might use a language that saves programmer time instead of computer time and safety, if the code is only going to be run in a safe sandbox couple of times to get an answer once...horses for courses.