It's as relevant as someone suggesting replacing C++ with rust. They're both great languages, and one just happens to be memory unsafe. In C++ vs javascript, they're both great languages but one just happens to be type unsafe. Regardless, each language has its own target purposes. That's how it's relevant.

So:

> I just find it very difficult to imagine a C++ programmer I'd trust as much as the rust compiler

I don't think anybody could reasonably say that C++ from 20 years ago is competitive with rust particularly since rust wasn't around back then. But the C++ of today isn't what it was 20 years ago. C++ isn't a single revision of the language. There are many versions of the language. There's no reason a new version of C++ can't improve upon one of its weaknesses... or even some of its strengths. Whether that's by learning different techniques from other languages or building upon its own, it would take solid C++ engineers, not rust engineers, to improve the language.

I'm only saying: there are a lot of software engineers who treat software engineering as their day job (eg, little if perhaps any passion about the language) but there are also plenty, if perhaps a minority, of engineers with a passion for the language; and the language can evolve to be more safe and has continuously done so over the past 20 years and will continue to do so well into the future. Rust certainly has its passionate engineers too, and a lot of other engineers on the bandwagon because they don't have to learn hard things like how to design software well in the first place.

All that to say: having the a good compiler (rust or not) is great but it won't save you from a poorly experienced engineer's design. Poorly experienced engineers aren't exclusive to C++.