Comparing a language using garbage collection to one tackling the hard problem of providing memory safety without it doesn't make much sense. Rust is a low-level systems programming language while Go is in a different niche. If you don't need a low-level language, don't use Rust.
"If you don't need a low-level language, don't use Rust." is far different than saying "don't use Rust". If you need a low-level language, use Rust. If you don't, use a high-level language offering more productivity, less friction and quicker development turnaround times.
It can be used, but that doesn't make it a good fit for it with productivity comparable to a high-level language with garbage collection and without many of the concerns fundamental to the design space of Rust is aimed at. It does Rust a disservice to have it presented as that.
Rust is more high-level than JavaScript, and its type system is better designed than TypeScript. There's many more features that Rust provides than simply safety and performance.
"Rust is more high-level than JavaScript"
That's nonsense, and I also don't understand why you're bringing up JavaScript. No one was talking about JavaScript or claiming that it's a well designed language or a good fit for general purpose usage, and the same goes for TypeScript.
This is Twitter so I shortened my sentence. What I'm trying to say is "many of Rust high-level features are not found within other high-level languages (save for Haskell)"
Which features? Rust's initial compiler was written in OCaml and there are assorted high-level languages that are actually squarely in that family like F# rather than just inheriting a bit of flavor from ML like Rust. Even a totally mainstream language like Swift has most of it.