While Ada doesn't provide the parallelism safety mecanisms from Rust, is is pretty much a safe systems programming language, specially the SPARK dialect.
And I do conceed that using RAII or memory pools is a bit more cumbersome than in Rust.
EDIT: Forgot to add that for me systems programming safety has been for a long time what Modula-3, Oberon and Ada offer. Only recently it became clear to me that Rust safety module is more broad.
Yeah, Ada/SPARK is safe too. But as I understand it achieves that by removing deallocation (from a single untyped heap) entirely, which is pretty limiting, though sufficient for a lot of embedded work.
In general Ada code, deallocation is considered unsafe and requires specializing the Unchecked_Deallocation() procedure. This is because Ada 83 allowed for optional GC.
In Ada 83, the safe alternative was to use memory pools.
With the newer revisions, support was added for RAII and Ada the ability to define custom refereced counted data structures, similar to how they are doing in C++.
So speaking of Ada 2012, you can get Ada's safety in terms of contracts, data types, numeric ranges, constrained types, access types (Ada pointers).
For heap related safety, it is possible if RAII, memory pools or RC access types are used. But like C++, this is one area where the compiler doesn't force the developer to use it.
While Ada doesn't provide the parallelism safety mecanisms from Rust, is is pretty much a safe systems programming language, specially the SPARK dialect.
And I do conceed that using RAII or memory pools is a bit more cumbersome than in Rust.
EDIT: Forgot to add that for me systems programming safety has been for a long time what Modula-3, Oberon and Ada offer. Only recently it became clear to me that Rust safety module is more broad.