It is better. That doesn't make it perfect but it's better.
This is to be expected, in fact Rust has to be a lot better to even make a showing, because C is the "default" in some sense, you can't just be similarly good, you have to be significantly better for people to even notice.
I expect that long before 2050 there will be other, even better languages, which learn from not only the mistakes Rust learned from, but the mistakes in Rust, and in other languages from this period.
Take Editions. C was never able to figure out a way to add keywords. Simple idea, but it couldn't be done. They had to be kludged as magic with an underscore prefix to take advantage of an existing requirement in the language design, in C++ they decided to take the compatibility hit and invalidate all code using the to-be-reserved words. But in Rust they were able to add several new keywords, no trouble at all, because they'd thought about this and designed the language accordingly. That's what Editions did for them. You can expect future innovation along that dimension in future languages.
It's categorically better because it's memory-safe. We just had another RCE bug in the Windows TCP/IP stack and it's 2024. This should not be happening.
Legacy will affect rust too. It's not better, just younger.
I tend to think of coding languages as laws passed by parliaments. A lot of legacy laws, and regulations hang around pver time.