I really enjoy some of the optimization details like when the memory overhead of Option<> can be elided completely. Other languages with Options will actually toss data up on the heap that doesn't need to be because it is in a Option and, or at the very least always take up a byte with the tag.
Details like this let you use the safer and more ergonomic solutions by default rather than having to worry if they are worth the overhead.
This depends on what one thinks of as build quality. If it is a certain way things look and feels that evoke emotions of quality and power, then yes, Apple's build quality is better.
But if you appreciate that things are engineered in a way to make repair-ability and upgrade-ability easy to make your life better and have less hassle, perhaps the Framework has better build quality.
I don't think Go's documentation is better than Rust, Go is just a lot simpler than Rust. Especially if you are a programmer with a background in any of the C-ish syntax languages (C,C++, javascript, Java, C#, etc), its just really easy to pick up.
Rust is a mind bending ordeal by comparison with both the borrow checker and other foreign ideas that take a while to come to terms with.
harshness of aluminum is mostly mythological and based on design of some early aluminum frames due to them being noisy. also 99.9% of compliance comes from tires. people reliably fail to detect frame differences in blind studies as well. even people who are professionals and people who insist the difference is obvious.
There are also alternative vector like types for different use cases, and you can roll your own.