Programming

You’re not making the strong case that you think you are. Quite the opposite. The ease of “shooting yourself in the foot” is precisely what makes it so difficult to learn. Segmentation faults and random memory corruption make it incredibly hard to get started with programming.

That's not the case, though. Some C and C++ compilers are already resilient and flexible enough to not get C and C++ to blow up in your face when you're doing unmentionable things to memory access. Some memory safety issues are only noticeable when running profilers and memory safety tools.

Keep in mind you are talking about someone taking their first steps in writing software. They are struggling to get stuff to work, and throwing curve balls at them is not going to help them get on their feet.

Also, I did not advocated for C or C++ as better options. My point is that Rust is an awful suggestion as a first language, which even the Rust community states. It also speaks volumes to Rust's unsuitability as a beginner programming language if the best attempt to refute that fact is to try to come up with worst alternatives that in the end aren't even worse at all.

Rust’s constraints are very clear and concise in comparison (...)

Irrelevant. The point is that Rust enforces constraints that other programming languages don't. If anyone is taking their first steps, not having to deal with them leads to a far more productive and enjoyable experience. It's absurd to talk about memory-safety and performance when the target audience doesn't even understand what memory is.