I think the idea is like: it took extra work 'cause Rust makes you be so explicit about allocations and types, but it's also probably faster/more reliable because that work was done.

Of course at the end of the day it's just marketing and doesn't necessarily mean anything. In my experience the average piece of Rust software does seem to be of higher quality though..

Even forgetting the memory safety and async safety guarantees, the language design produces lower defect code by a wide margin. Google and other orgs have written papers about this.

There are no exceptions. There are no nulls. You're encouraged to return explicit errors. No weird error flags or booleans or unexpected ways of handling abnormal behaviors. It's all standardized. Then the language syntax makes it easy to handle and super ergonomic and pleasurable. It's nice to handle errors in Rust. Fully first class.

Result<T,E>, Option<T>, match, if let, if let Ok, if let Some, while let, `?`, map, map_err, ok_or, ok_or_else, etc. etc. It's all super ergonomic. The language makes this one of its chief concerns, and writing idiomatic Rust encourages you to handle errors smartly.

Because errors were so well thought out, you write fewer bugs.

Finally, the way the language makes you manage scope, it's almost impossible to write complicated nesting or difficult to follow logic. Hard to describe this one unless you have experience writing Rust, but it's a big contributor to high quality code.

Rust code is highly readable and easy to reason about (once you learn the syntax). There are no surprises with Rust. It's written simply and straightforwardly and does what it says on the tin.