Ada is a language that had features dealing with these problems way back in the 1980s, so people have suddenly become interested in revisiting it.
Ada isn't memory safe. It doesn't have anything resembling a borrow checker. The spec used to allow an optional garbage collector, but that was never widely used in practice and was removed in Ada 2012. The average production codebase relies on Unchecked_Free/Unchecked_Deallocation for memory management.
I find it genuinely baffling that so many people who praise Ada clearly don't know and/or don't use the language.
Rust also has soundness holes, by the way. This one is almost 10 years old: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/25860
2015: "The work needed to close this has not yet landed. It's in the queue though, once we finish up rust-lang/rfcs#1214."
You can go a very long way without ever touching Unchecked_Deallocation compared to C or Rust, even without allowing for use of the standard library where deallocation is done under the hood. I use it rarely enough that I have to go check the package specification every time I need it.
You also have relatively safe deallocation when you wrap your allocation in a storage pool and let RAII deal with it as the pointer system keeps you safe from a dangling reference if your container type only frees memory within the Finalize procedure.
You don't have the complete memory safety of a GC or Rust's borrow checker without SPARK, but you can completely avoid the unsafe parts or use well tested containers as opposed to C and other similar language where you need unsafe pointers to do anything non-trivial.
I'll praise the language I use daily as far more memory-safe than the others I use daily (bar managed-memory Java-like languages).