I would agree with the parent. It's a while since I did my last MISRA project, but I know that it doesn't even prevent basic memory safety issues or leaks. It's more a set of coding guidelines that prevent some kinds of errors than robust tool that will reliably detect those.
Static analyzers work better, but often have a terrible signal-to-noise ratio. I think Rust can on average prevent more errors than all of those things out of the box, which is impressive.
The downside is obviously the increased complexity, and that it sometimes feels one is forced to work around the limitations of the "static analysis tool". Which likely comes from the fact that the borrow checker is some kind of analysis tool, where the annotations are directly included into the language.
Thanks, my experience is just on reading papers about it, so it is nice to have feedback from actual uses of it.
Regarding with Rust having a kind of analysis tool directly built into the language, fully agree, that is what is so nice about safer systems languages, and what I liked in Algol/Wirth languages.
Static analyzers work better, but often have a terrible signal-to-noise ratio. I think Rust can on average prevent more errors than all of those things out of the box, which is impressive.
The downside is obviously the increased complexity, and that it sometimes feels one is forced to work around the limitations of the "static analysis tool". Which likely comes from the fact that the borrow checker is some kind of analysis tool, where the annotations are directly included into the language.