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.
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.