[kevlar700]

Honestly Ada is far better than Rust for close to metal as it was designed for it. It is also safer and easier to use than Rust. Ada has also been demonstrated to be more cost effective over a programs lifetime than C, C++ and Java. I also dropped Go for Ada and prefer the quality and memory control that Ada offers. The only thing I miss are the stdlib docs and the ease of cross compilation.

[lolinder]

> Ada is far better than Rust for close to metal as it was designed for it.

Sorry, can you elaborate on this? Rust was also designed to be close to the metal, so I'm assuming that there's some concrete difference that you're referring to.

> Ada has also been demonstrated to be more cost effective over a programs lifetime than C, C++ and Java.

Do you have a citation for this improved cost-effectiveness? Things like that are notoriously difficult to prove, so I'd be curious to know how this was measured.

[kevlar700]

Adas specification was developed competitively over a number of years with embedded development as well as the ability to replace all 450 languages in use by the D.O.D. at the time as requirements. Rusts first official specification is still in the works aside from the one created by AdaCore.

Representation clauses are just beautiful for embedded memory-mapped registers and network protocols and driver registers received over spi/i2c etc.. There is even built-in validity checking. No need to shift generally as the compiler does everything for you.

https://learn.adacore.com/courses/Ada_For_The_Embedded_C_Dev...

The D.O.D study that includes Java would need to be dug up but this one is interesting too.

https://forum.ada-lang.io/t/comparing-the-development-costs-...

I only found out recently that the D.O.D. Ada mandate didn't say you had to use Ada. It said you had to demonstrate why your project would be more cost-effective than using Ada. Considering Ada was designed with cost-effectiveness/maintainability as a primary requirement then that was a difficult task.