The Trinity of Trust: Exploring Ada, SPARK, and Rust in Embedded Programming
Cette publication existe aussi en Français
Three programming languages are shaping the future of memory safety in embedded systems: Ada, SPARK, and Rust. Each was designed with reliability in mind, but their approaches differ in ways that give engineers meaningful choices depending on project requirements and end goals. Where traditional languages like C and C++ leave memory management to the developer, often leading to security vulnerabilities, these modern alternatives bring safety guarantees directly into the language’s core design.
Ada
So, what is Ada? Ada is a long-established language in aerospace, defense, and various safety-critical domains. Its strength lies in strong typing and modularity, which help prevent the many common bug categories. With an emphasis on readability and explicitness, Ada makes it difficult for unsafe practices to slip into production code.
Many developers turn to Ada because it’s a proven solution for building reliable and safe embedded solutions. It has a long history in safety-critical domains like aerospace and defense, where failure is not an option. Its strong typing and built-in concurrency features help prevent bugs that are regularly found in languages like C. For engineers working on projects with strict certification requirements, Ada can provide a robust framework that makes it difficult to introduce vulnerabilities, leading to more secure and stable end products.
SPARK
SPARK is a formally verifiable subset of Ada that introduces advanced mathematical proof techniques that allow developers to verify at compile-time the absence of certain classes of defects (e.g, buffer overflows or data races). This makes SPARK valuable for industries where software certification and guarantees of correctness are required.
For engineers deeply concerned with verification and absolute correctness, SPARK is a logical choice. As a formally verifiable subset of Ada, it allows developers to use mathematical proofs to demonstrate the absence of certain runtime errors at compile time. This provides a helpful level of assurance for critical systems. For eeNews Europe‘s audience, this means SPARK is uniquely suited for applications where the cost of a software defect is astronomically high, such as in avionics, autonomous vehicles, or medical devices.
Rust
Rust, meanwhile, represents a newer entrant that has rapidly gained traction in both embedded and systems programming. Its hallmark feature is the ownership model, which enforces strict rules for how memory is allocated, borrowed, and freed—all at compile-time. This eliminates entire categories of runtime errors, including dangling pointers and double frees, without the need for a garbage collector. Developers are attracted to Rust not only for its memory safety, but also for its modern tooling ecosystem and ability to interoperate with existing C codebases via foreign-function interfaces.
eeNews Europe readers should be interested in Rust for its modern approach to memory safety without sacrificing performance. Its ownership model is a key feature that prevents common C/C++ memory errors (e.g., dangling pointers and buffer overflows at compile time), eliminating many security vulnerabilities. Rust’s modern tooling, powerful package manager, and growing ecosystem make it an attractive option for new projects. Its ability to interoperate with existing C codebases also makes it a practical choice for updating legacy systems and embracing a safer paradigm in a way that’s both efficient and scalable.
The Shift
Together, these languages reflect a shift toward memory-safe programming solutions. With regulators and OEMs increasingly requiring robust defenses against security exploits, Ada, SPARK, and Rust provide viable solutions for engineers who need to deliver high performance and high assurance. For embedded systems architects, the choice between them often comes down to trade-offs in toolchain maturity, certification readiness, and overall support, but the common thread is clear: safety is no longer optional; it’s an engineering imperative.
Ada, SPARK, Rust, and the Future of Safe Code
Want to learn more? In Elektor Engineering Insights #54, Quentin Ochem, Chief Product and Revenue Officer at AdaCore, led a informative session exploring how Ada, SPARK, and Rust are redefining reliability in embedded systems.
Ochem began by contrasting these languages with legacy solutions like C and C++, whose inherent vulnerabilities (e.g., buffer overflows, double frees, and so on) continue to plague safety-critical systems. In response, Ada and SPARK deliver strong typing and formal verification; Rust contributes its robust ownership model for compile-time safety.
He then touched on the following:
- Defect Prevention Through Language Design: Ada and SPARK benefit from static analysis and mathematical proof capabilities that help guarantee absence of low-level bugs. Rust, in turn, enforces memory safety through strict compile-time rules around ownership and borrowing.
- Industry Relevance and Adoption: Ada’s track record spans aerospace and high-assurance sectors, while Rust is garnering growing attention across both embedded and IT domains. Ochem mentions specifics such as Nvidia leveraging SPARK in automotive and firmware contexts.
- Tooling and Integration: Viewers learn about compiler toolchains, integrating memory-safe languages with existing C libraries via foreign-function interfaces, and strategies for performance optimization, hardware targeting, and compliance with certification standards like ISO 26262.
For eeNews Europe readers, especially embedded developers and systems architects, the episode offers a helpful glimpse into practical implementation and trade-offs when adopting memory-safe paradigms. Those interested in enhancing long-term software reliability can expect insight-rich content with real-world relevance.
If you enjoyed this article, you will like the following ones: don't miss them by subscribing to :
