I measured it. On multiple projects. Some I started writing in Rust, so this is not the "rewrite effect" at play. I observe x2 to x3 on development time alone, long term if we compound review, debugging and maintenance I wouldn't be surprised to see if it tends to an order of magnitude of difference.

Results will depend on the available ecosystem for each language for the task at hand. For instance I'd still choose C++ with qt for writing a GUI today.

The reasons why Rust is more productive are easy to understand and touch most of the development steps:

- building is trivial in Rust, adding dependencies also. Depending on how broken the CMake of your C++ dependency is, it can take several days to wrap it so it can be used sanely. The remaining time is dependency review, which must also be taken in C++.

- Development itself is much easier, thanks to Rust's expressive typesystem (mostly sum types and traits) and "functional-lite" iterators (C++ is getting there with ranges but today we're still far from the same ergonomy, we're still missing pattern matching, and views introduce lifetime issues). The sane error/warning demarcation allow to develop without the equivalent of "-WError" (which is hard to do sanely in C++ due to eg missing return being a warning), which allows to use these warnings to drive development (you can stub every function and when you no longer have any "unused variable/unused function" warning, you're done). More generally, Rust removes most of the boilerplate of C++: you don't need to maintain superfluous representations of your interface as headers (the documented interfaces are generated using cargo doc), you can derive `Hash` instead of opening the std namespace, functions and structs definition all start with a keyword so they're easy to grep for, the language being expression oriented means we don't have to rely on immediately invoked lambdas as soon as what we want is to bind a variable depending on an if, we don't have pure stupid boilerplate like the rule of five to enforce, and a thousand of other ergonomic improvements over C++. Rust feels like a language designed by a C++ developer tired of the flaws of C++.

- Since many errors are lifted at compile time, the feedback loop becomes much shorter. On the same library that has both a C++ and a Rust interface, we had memory errors several times due to a function that returns a view of its argument without that being clearly expressed or expected. In C++, this meant looking for what went wrong after a segfault, something that took an hour to two engineers. In Rust, the compiler told us that the particular variable was not living long enough, and went so far as to suggest the fix. Time spent on this: 10 seconds. And this comparison only hold for the memory errors that we did catch in C++...

- Test and documentation use standard tooling that is included by default. The ecosystem documentation is stored on a centralized website, meaning is a single place to look at to find documentation (that at least contains the interface of the library).
- Review is made easier with no implicit code paths due to implicit conversions or exceptions. Error handling has the right amount of noise, a single character to pass back the error (possibly adding some context), otherwise a match construct to handle each error case. The error story is not perfect, but much better than in C++. The "dangerous patterns" are made easy to spot (unsafe, unwrap, etc) and should be confined to specific parts of the code (eg hot loops where benchmarks prove that it is necessary). Rust make code review able to focus on the problem at hand rather than the many rules you have to follow to not blow your foot off in C++. In the presence of other developers (or even for myself :-)), it is really welcome.

- Maintenance time is reduced by all of the above, over time, compounded by the ease with which one can refactor Rust code compared to C++ code. If refactoring a module without unsafe there is no chance of introducing memory issues. Generally the strong type system (no implicit conversions) makes it easier to not accidentally introduce logic errors

Now, there are drawbacks to Rust: the ease of adding dependencies means that we can have deeper dependency tree, so this make reviewing dependencies a bit more tedious (thankfully code review is easier). Occasionally the borrow checker comes in and forbid some patterns (mostly when we would write code depending on iterators not being invalidated in C++), and having done less rust than C++ sometimes I need to find the correct pattern for something. On average though, the advantage is very clear.