AT&T syntax is actually the common one in most low-level programming if you count by architectures and most likely also by code size produced, if only because GCC has/had been the de facto compiler for new chip uarchs for more than a decade (helped by the fact that everyone wants their chips to run Linux).
Nowadays GCC and LLVM support both styles and archs pick whatever they prefer and nobody cares, really.
> either fork the project, or submit a patch with a fix using Intel syntax.
That sounds a bit extreme? Reading/writing in both styles is not an issue for anyone that has dealt with x86 professionally.
Yes, but low-level programming implies direct access to memory and instructions.
Rust is not designed for memory safety only. If you only want that, there are other simpler options, like any functional, scripting or managed language. Instead, Rust is designed to bring as much memory safety as possible (but not more!) to the low-level and performance fields.