Bounds checking is like 1% of the safety that Rust guarantees you. That's a false-equivalence. The bigger ones are around memory safety like use-after-free, double-free, and memory issues in the face of concurrency. Zig does not help you with that.

There are many ways to get rid of bounds checking in Rust. One of those ways is just utilizing iterators. For alternatives, there's a bounds check cookbook you should checkout [0].

Thus far, I've written two libraries that utilize Rust, and they are usually associated with "high performance". I was able to exceed the performance of similar libraries written in C/C++.

To be perfectly clear, this doesn't mean Rust can replace C/C++ in every scenario, but the actual perf gap is narrower than some folks may be willing to admit.

[0] https://shnatsel.medium.com/how-to-avoid-bounds-checks-in-ru...

Bound checks, which are part of what you get with Rust, also exist in ReleaseSafe Zig, that is true. But if that is what you wanted to say, your statement is very confusing and also does not answer the GP. If you meant to say ReleaseSafe and Rust are equivalent, then this is just false. ReleaseSafe still has many UBs (most importantly use after free and double free), not to mention that Rust solves many problems at compile time and Zig only at runtime.

You make it sound as if all bugs could be catched in development builds.

Still doesn't have a good answer for use after free, although the allocators on the last release might help into that regard.