Where do they mention that they decided against Rust ?

Ada is certified by ISO for being used in automotive control systems. Rust isn't.

So I'm not sure how Rust could have even been an option. AFAIK, the options are Ada, MISRA C, and certain Forth flavors. That's it. I'd take Ada over these alternatives every day.

The session that they did together with AdaCore presenting which languages they went through and why they picked Ada in the end.

Rust syntax was one of the factors that played against it.

"Securing the Future of Safety and Security of Embedded Software"

https://www.adacore.com/webinars/securing-future-of-embedded...

Page 35,

https://www.slideshare.net/AdaCore/securing-the-future-of-sa...

Where does it say syntax is against rust. It seems like no commercial vendor meaning no plans for certification combined with no spark equivalent we're the reasons.

Watch the video, slides are just one part.

Part of "Determine the difficulty and learning curve for others".

Rust is also discussed at 35:00 into the presentation, noting the lack of a spec, higher memory util, and no commmercial vendor.

Yeah, Rust is not certified, and probably can't be certified without a spec.

> and no commmercial vendor.

So it's about liability. Makes sense.

I'm surprised they even considered Rust in any capacity as they couldn't use it as there are no certifications for it. Speaks quite a bit for rust that they considered it a "major alternative" as per their slides.