I've been through everyone's pain, having struggled with Rust myself. I have been writing code for almost 60 years in just about every language you can think of (and some you can't) and Rust was the most difficult. I've written about 10,000 lines of Rust code and the result performs extremely well and is rock-solid. But it was a bloody struggle.
I have no desire to cast aspersions on anyone, but I am not a big fan of the "affectionately named"(!!) Book. The information is there, but I don't think it is well-organized or well-written. I highly recommend Blandy and Orendorff "Programming Rust: Fast, Safe Systems Development". It is among the best books I've ever read about a programming language, up there with K&R, Harbison and Steele and the Scheme Reports.
I've said this before here -- for ordinary applications that would not suffer from the use of a garbage-collected language, I would use one of them instead, e.g., Go, Nim, or Haskell (if you like Scheme, as I do, Chez Scheme is an excellent implementation, very fast, very mature). Rust imposes a significant cost on the programmer in its (successful) attempt to provide memory safety without a garbage collector. I paid that price because I was intrigued by the language, I'm retired and writing code for my own use, and I could afford the Rust experiment. If the work I did was a project I was managing in the real world, with actual costs and deadlines, I would not have chosen Rust.
But for work that really justifies use of C or C++, I highly recommend Rust instead. The learning curve will be justified by the correctness of the outcome and the absence of very hard-to-find bugs.
Lastly, I would recommend that if you pursue working in Rust and you get confused, use this forum. There are a number of very smart, well-informed people here who generously provide help to the needy. If I had had to rely solely on the documentation, I never would have gotten my project done. The help I received here was absolutely crucial.