> On a serious note, old software is generally more trustworthy than new software, because bugs are discovered over time and with usage.

The age of software means bugs are more likely to be discovered but not necessarily fixed. In the case of Rust, the developers have documented a whole lot of unsoundness bugs that require a new borrow checker architecture to fix.

Old C software is generally more trustworthy than new C software. I don't think this rule of thumb transfers across languages very well. And the definition of new vs old has a fairly large effect. If a language has been under constant change it doesn't matter when it was started a large part of the codebase is "new".