3 ms·
How? Ada was designed for programming safety-critical, military-grade embedded systems. Rust was designed as a memory-safe, concurrency-safe programming langu
by thesuperbigfrog 7y ago
How?
Ada was designed for programming safety-critical, military-grade embedded systems.
Rust was designed as a memory-safe, concurrency-safe programming language, largely to overcome the shortcomings of C++.
Each excels at what it was designed for, but the intended use cases are very different.
Rust is not (currently) being used for aircraft flight control systems--Ada is.
Ada is not (currently) being used for high-performance web browsers and servers--Rust is.
While there are SOME similar design goals in terms of memory safety, concurrency safety, and error prevention, they do not "overlap almost entirely in use case".
- galangalalgol 7y agoThose are good points. While I can see rust flying within the next few years, I dont see it in flight controls for a while yet. That said I'm aware of c++ flight control software which seems insane. And that seems to be the trend. Rust does target embedded so there is no reason not to try and move it in that direction, though ada seems a much better choice.
- thesuperbigfrog 7y agoAgreed. The PicoRV32 mentioned in the article's "WHERE TO GO FROM HERE" section has its own crate: https://docs.rs/picorv32/0.1.3/picorv32/ https://docs.rs/picorv32/0.1.3/picorv32/ C/C++ have been great for embedded work, but Ada and Rust are better alternatives in my opinion. They are safer, more powerful, and more secure.