1. Introduction: The Renaissance of Systems Programming

The domain of systems programming—the discipline of building the software infrastructure upon which all other applications run—has undergone a profound transformation in the twenty-first century. For nearly four decades, the field was defined by a single, monolithic trade-off: performance versus safety. Languages like C and C++ provided the developer with unmediated access to hardware resources, manual memory management, and zero-cost abstractions, enabling the creation of operating systems, game engines, and high-frequency trading platforms. However, this power came at the cost of memory unsafety. The developer assumed total responsibility for the correctness of memory access. A single error—a forgotten free, a dangling pointer, or a buffer overflow—could result in catastrophic security vulnerabilities.

In recent years, the industry has reached a consensus that this trade-off is no longer acceptable. Reports from major technology vendors, including Microsoft and Google, have consistently indicated that approximately 70% of all assigned Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are derived from memory safety violations.¹ This realization has catalyzed a renaissance in programming language design, characterized by the search for a “Holy Grail”: a language that compiles to efficient native machine code, offers the low-level control of C, yet guarantees memory safety without the heavy runtime overhead of a traditional Garbage Collector (GC).

This report provides an exhaustive, expert-level analysis of the programming languages that have emerged to fill this void. While Rust is the most prominent example, having fundamentally altered the landscape by proving that affine type systems can enforce safety at compile time, it is by no means the only contender. We will examine a spectrum of languages including Rust, Ada (SPARK), Zig, Odin, Nim, Swift, Go, D, Crystal, Pony, and the emerging Hylo. Each of these languages compiles to native binaries and addresses the problem of memory safety, yet they diverge radically in their methods—ranging from formal mathematical proofs and compile-time ownership tracking to deterministic reference counting and modern garbage collection.

1.1 Defining the Scope: “Like Rust”

To rigorously compare languages to Rust, we must establish the defining characteristics of this category. The languages analyzed in this report share three critical attributes:

1. Native Compilation: They rely on Ahead-of-Time (AOT) compilation to produce standalone binaries that execute directly on the hardware. This excludes languages dependent on heavy virtual machines (like Java or C#) or interpreters (like Python), ensuring they are suitable for resource-constrained environments or high-performance CLI tools.²
2. Memory Safety Mechanisms: They provide architectural guarantees or strong defaults to prevent common memory errors. This distinguishes them from C and C++, where safety is entirely manual.⁴
3. Systems Capability: They offer mechanisms to control memory layout, interface with C libraries, and manage resources deterministically, even if some utilize a garbage collector.

The analysis breaks these languages into taxonomies based on how they achieve safety: the Verifiers (Rust, Ada/SPARK, Pony), the Pragmatists (Zig, Odin), the Deterministic Automators (Swift, Nim), and the Runtime Managers (Go, D, Crystal).

2. The Verification Standard: Rust

Rust has become the standard-bearer for modern systems programming because it fundamentally solves the memory safety problem without sacrificing performance. Its central innovation is the borrow checker, a static analysis tool embedded within the compiler that enforces a strict ownership model.

2.1 The Ownership Model and Borrow Checker

At the heart of Rust is the concept of ownership. Unlike C, where memory management is manual, or Java, where it is handled by a background process, Rust tracks the lifetime of every value at compile time.

• Single Ownership: Every value in Rust has a single variable that is its “owner.” When the owner goes out of scope, the value is essentially dropped (deallocated). This prevents memory leaks without a garbage collector.⁵
• Move Semantics: When a value is assigned to another variable or passed to a function, ownership is transferred (“moved”). The original variable becomes invalid. This compile-time invalidation prevents double-free errors, as the compiler rejects any attempt to use the moved value.⁶
• Borrowing: To allow data to be used without transferring ownership, Rust uses “borrowing” (references). The rules are strict: a value can have either multiple immutable references (&T) OR exactly one mutable reference (&mut T), but never both simultaneously. This constraint, known as “aliasing XOR mutability,” eliminates data races at compile time.⁷

This system allows Rust to achieve “Fearless Concurrency.” Since data races occur when two threads access the same memory concurrently where at least one access is a write, Rust’s borrow checker renders this state representable only in unsafe blocks.⁸

2.2 The “Unsafe” Escape Hatch

Rust acknowledges that not all valid programs can be verified by its type system. It provides the unsafe keyword, which allows the developer to bypass certain checks (e.g., dereferencing raw pointers). However, unsafe does not disable the borrow checker entirely; it merely permits specific operations that the compiler cannot verify. The idiomatic Rust approach is to wrap unsafe code in safe abstractions, confining the potential for undefined behavior (UB) to small, auditable modules.⁹

2.3 Ecosystem and Tooling

Rust’s dominance is reinforced by its tooling. Cargo, the package manager and build system, standardizes dependency management, testing, and documentation. This standardization is a significant departure from the fragmented build systems of C/C++ (Make, CMake, Meson). The ecosystem includes crates like Rayon for data parallelism, which leverages the ownership model to guarantee thread safety, converting sequential iterators to parallel ones with a single method call (par_iter()).⁸

2.4 Challenges: The Learning Curve

The primary critique of Rust is its learning curve. Concepts like lifetimes (annotations that tell the compiler how long references are valid) and the borrow checker’s rigid rules can be frustrating for newcomers. Developers often describe a period of “fighting the borrow checker” before internalizing the ownership model.¹¹ Furthermore, because the compiler performs complex analysis (monomorphization of generics, lifetime checking), compilation times can be significantly slower than languages like Go or C.¹³

2.5 Industry Adoption

Rust has achieved penetration in the most critical layers of the software stack. It is now supported as a second language in the Linux Kernel, used by Microsoft for parts of the Windows Kernel, and adopted by companies like Discord (who migrated from Go to Rust to eliminate GC latency spikes) and Cloudflare.¹⁴

3. The High-Assurance Ancestor: Ada and SPARK

While Rust is often credited with bringing safety to systems programming, Ada has prioritized safety since its inception in the 1980s. SPARK is a formally defined subset of Ada designed for high-assurance systems where failure is unacceptable (e.g., avionics, medical devices, railway signaling).

3.1 Formal Verification vs. Borrow Checking

While Rust relies on a sophisticated type system and heuristics to prevent memory errors, SPARK relies on formal verification.

• Design by Contract: SPARK allows developers to attach “contracts” to functions—preconditions (what must be true before a function runs) and postconditions (what must be true after it runs).
• Mathematical Proof: The SPARK toolset (specifically GNATprove) uses SMT solvers (Satisfiability Modulo Theories) to mathematically prove that the code adheres to these contracts and is free from runtime errors (e.g., buffer overflows, division by zero) for all possible inputs.¹⁵

This goes beyond Rust’s guarantees. Rust proves that a program is memory safe; SPARK can prove that a program is functionally correct (i.e., it does exactly what the specification says).¹⁷

3.2 Ownership in SPARK

Historically, Ada relied on runtime checks for safety. However, modern SPARK (Ada 202x) has integrated ownership features inspired by Rust. SPARK’s ownership model handles pointers (access types) by tracking ownership transfer and preventing aliasing violations. This allows SPARK to verify pointer-based programs without the runtime overhead of garbage collection or reference counting.¹⁸

3.3 Safety Profile and Performance

In terms of safety, SPARK is arguably superior to Rust because it covers logical correctness. A Rust program can still panic at runtime (e.g., an array index out of bounds); a formally verified SPARK program can be proven never to panic.

• Performance: SPARK allows the compiler to suppress runtime checks (like bounds checks) if they have been formally proven to be unnecessary. This can theoretically lead to binaries that are faster than safe Rust (which keeps bounds checks) and as fast as C.²⁰
• Binary Size: Like C and Rust, Ada/SPARK produces small, standalone binaries. It does not require a heavy runtime environment.²¹

3.4 The Cost of Formal Methods

The trade-off for SPARK is the development effort. Writing contracts and guiding the proof tools requires specialized knowledge and significantly more time upfront than writing standard code. Consequently, SPARK is rarely used for general-purpose applications (like web servers or CLIs), remaining a niche tool for safety-critical industries.¹⁶

4. The Pragmatists: Zig and Odin

Zig and Odin represent a counter-movement to Rust. They argue that the complexity of the borrow checker and the “hidden control flow” of advanced type systems (like destructors and operator overloading) are detrimental to maintainable software. Their approach to memory safety is manual but guarded.

4.1 Zig: The “Modern C”

Zig positions itself as a successor to C, not C++. It removes the preprocessor and undefined behavior of C but retains the manual memory management model. Zig does not strictly guarantee memory safety at compile time.

• Explicit Allocation: In Zig, there is no global allocator. Any function that allocates memory must accept an Allocator parameter. This makes memory usage explicit and obvious. Developers can swap allocators easily, using an ArenaAllocator to free all memory at once (simplifying lifetime management) or a GeneralPurposeAllocator that detects leaks.²³
• Spatial Safety: While it lacks Rust’s temporal safety (it allows use-after-free), Zig enforces spatial safety. Slices are bounds-checked by default in safe build modes (ReleaseSafe). Pointers cannot be null unless marked as optional (?T), and the compiler forces unwrapping.¹¹
• Comptime: Zig’s metaprogramming features allow code to be executed at compile time. This enables powerful generic programming and optimizations without the complexity of C++ templates or Rust macros.²⁴
• Safety vs. Control: Zig places the burden of temporal safety on the developer. A Zig program can exhibit use-after-free errors if logic is flawed. However, the language provides extensive tooling (like the GeneralPurposeAllocator’s leak detection) to catch these issues during testing.²⁵

4.2 Odin: Data-Oriented Programming

Odin is a language developed with a specific focus on game development and data-oriented design. Like Zig, it eschews RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialization) and hidden control flow.

• Vendor Libraries: Odin is “batteries included,” shipping with high-quality vendor libraries for graphics and math, unlike Zig’s minimal standard library.²⁷
• Optimization Strategy: Interestingly, Odin explicitly disables certain aggressive LLVM optimizations that rely on undefined behavior. While this can theoretically make it slower than C or Rust in synthetic benchmarks, it results in more predictable and correct code behavior.²⁹
• Memory Management: Odin uses manual memory management with a context system that allows allocators to be implicitly passed through the call stack, reducing the verbosity seen in Zig while maintaining flexibility.²⁸

4.3 Why Choose Pragmatism?

These languages are attractive to developers who find Rust’s friction too high. They offer the “feel” of C—simplicity, fast compilation, and total control—while removing the most egregious footguns (e.g., implicit casts, lack of modules, null pointers). They are ideal for domains where performance and layout control are critical, but the strictness of formal verification or borrow checking is seen as an impedance to iteration.²⁷

5. The Deterministic Automators: Swift and Nim

A significant group of developers seeks memory safety without the manual overhead of Zig/C nor the cognitive overhead of Rust’s lifetimes. Swift and Nim solve this via Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) and deterministic resource management.

5.1 Swift: From App Dev to Systems Language

Swift was created by Apple to replace Objective-C. While initially perceived as an application language, it has steadily evolved features that make it a viable systems language.

• ARC (Automatic Reference Counting): Swift manages memory by inserting retain (increment) and release (decrement) operations at compile time. When a reference count hits zero, the object is deallocated immediately. This is deterministic, unlike a tracing GC which runs at unpredictable intervals.³¹
• The Cost of ARC: The primary downside of ARC is the overhead of atomic operations required to maintain thread safety for reference counts. This can make Swift slower than Rust or C++ for heavy object churn workloads. However, Swift optimizes this by eliding unnecessary ref-counting operations where the compiler can prove ownership.³²
• Swift 6 and Data-Race Safety: With the release of Swift 6, the language has introduced a strict concurrency model. Using concepts like Sendable types and actor isolation, Swift can now statically guarantee the absence of data races, effectively matching Rust’s thread-safety guarantees.

• Actors: Swift integrates the Actor model directly. Mutable state inside an actor is isolated; it can only be accessed asynchronously, preventing race conditions.³⁴
• Performance: Swift allows “opt-out” of safety for performance-critical sections using UnsafeMutableBufferPointer, similar to Rust’s unsafe.¹

5.2 Nim: The Flexible Transpiler

Nim is a unique language that compiles to C (or C++, or JavaScript) and then uses a C compiler (like GCC or Clang) to generate the final binary. This gives it seamless interoperability with C/C++ libraries and excellent performance.

• ARC and ORC: Historically, Nim used a soft real-time GC. However, recent versions (since version 1.4/2.0) default to ARC.

• Nim ARC: Unlike Swift, Nim’s ARC minimizes atomic operations. It relies on “move semantics” and flow analysis to elide reference counting operations for local variables. It is essentially a static memory management system that falls back to reference counting only when ownership is shared.³⁶
• ORC: Because ARC cannot handle reference cycles (e.g., A references B, B references A), Nim introduces ORC—ARC plus a lightweight cycle collector. This allows Nim to handle complex data structures without manual intervention while maintaining deterministic destruction for acyclic data.³⁶

• Thread Safety: Nim uses “Isolate” graphs. It ensures at compile time that data passed between threads is isolated (has no other references), preventing race conditions without the need for locks on the data itself.³⁸
• Adoption: Nim is used in production by companies like Status (blockchain) and various high-frequency trading firms due to its ability to write high-level, Python-like code that compiles to C-speed binaries.⁴⁰

6. The Managed Systems Languages: Go, D, and Crystal

These languages challenge the traditional definition of “systems programming” by including a Garbage Collector (GC). They argue that a highly optimized GC is sufficient for 95% of systems tasks, including database implementation, web servers, and tooling.

6.1 Go: The Cloud Operating Standard

Go (Golang) is the most commercially successful language in this comparative set. Created at Google, it prioritizes engineering velocity, simplicity, and fast compilation over zero-cost abstractions.

• Memory Safety: Go is memory safe. It uses a concurrent, tri-color mark-and-sweep garbage collector. The GC is designed for low latency (sub-millisecond pauses), making it suitable for network servers where throughput is key.⁸
• Trade-offs: Go does not provide the spatial control of Rust or Zig. You cannot easily control stack allocation vs heap allocation; the compiler’s “escape analysis” decides for you.
• Concurrency: Go’s “Goroutines” (M:N scheduling) allow developers to spawn thousands of concurrent tasks cheaply. However, Go does not prevent data races at compile time. It relies on a runtime Race Detector (-race) to catch these issues during testing.⁴¹
• Use Case: Go is the standard for cloud infrastructure (Kubernetes, Docker, Terraform). It is chosen when development speed and concurrency support are more important than squeezing the last bit of raw CPU performance or memory efficiency.⁴³

6.2 Crystal: Ruby Syntax, C Performance

Crystal is often described as “Ruby, but compiled.” It aims to provide the developer happiness of Ruby with the performance of LLVM-optimized binaries.

• Safety: Crystal uses a Boehm-Demers-Weiser GC (a conservative GC) by default. It is type-safe and handles nulls via strict union types (type | Nil), forcing developers to check for nil before use.⁴⁴
• Performance: In benchmarks, Crystal often outperforms Go in raw CPU throughput and matches it in HTTP latency, thanks to LLVM optimizations and the lack of a heavy runtime scheduler.⁴⁵
• Concurrency: Crystal uses “Fibers” (similar to Goroutines). However, its multi-threading support (running fibers across multiple CPU cores) is still in a “preview” state as of 2025 (-Dpreview_mt). The standard library is not yet fully thread-safe, limiting its use in massive parallel processing compared to Go or Rust.⁴⁷
• Adoption: Crystal is used in niche high-performance web applications and tools (e.g., 84codes, Invidious) but lacks the massive corporate backing of Go or Swift.⁴⁹

6.3 D: The Multi-Paradigm Pioneer

D has been around longer than Rust, Go, or Swift. It offers a unique approach where the GC is optional, and the language supports multiple paradigms (OOP, functional, metaprogramming).

• The @safe Subset: D allows developers to mark functions as @safe. The compiler enforces that these functions do not perform unsafe pointer arithmetic or unchecked casts. This creates a memory-safe subset within a systems language.⁵⁰
• DIP1000 and Lifetimes: D has introduced experimental features (DIP1000) to track the scope and lifetime of pointers, aiming to provide Rust-like guarantees. However, adoption is mixed, and it is often considered complex to use effectively compared to Rust’s native ownership model.⁵¹
• GC vs Manual: While D has a GC, it is possible to write “Better C” code (-betterC) that disables the runtime and GC, effectively turning D into a modern C. This flexibility is both a strength (versatility) and a weakness (ecosystem fragmentation).⁵³

7. The Theorist: Pony

Pony is perhaps the most theoretically interesting language in this analysis. It utilizes the Actor Model exclusively and employs a unique type system based on Reference Capabilities to ensure safety.

7.1 Reference Capabilities (RefCaps)

Pony guarantees mathematical data-race freedom at compile time without locks. It achieves this by attaching “capabilities” to every reference, defining what the holder can do and what aliases can exist.

• iso (Isolated): The unique reference to an object. It can be sent to another actor (ownership transfer) because the compiler knows no other actor holds a reference.⁵⁴
• val (Value): Globally immutable. Safe to share among millions of actors because no one can write to it.
• ref (Reference): Mutable, but local to one actor. Cannot be shared.
• tag (Identity): Can be stored and compared, but the data cannot be read or written. Safe to share.

7.2 Performance and GC

Because of RefCaps, Pony knows exactly which actor owns what data. This allows it to perform Garbage Collection independently for each actor. There is no “stop-the-world” global GC pause. If one actor is collecting garbage, others continue running. This makes Pony exceptionally predictable for high-concurrency systems.⁵⁵

7.3 Adoption and Limitations

Despite its brilliant design, Pony remains niche. The mental model of Reference Capabilities is even steeper than Rust’s lifetimes. Additionally, early adopters like Wallaroo Labs migrated from Pony to Rust, citing Rust’s larger ecosystem and tooling support as decisive factors, despite Pony’s theoretical superiority in concurrency.⁵⁷

8. Emerging Frontiers: Hylo and Carbon

As the field evolves, new languages continue to appear to address specific gaps.

• Hylo (formerly Val): Hylo explores “Mutable Value Semantics.” It aims to provide the safety of Rust without the complexity of references and lifetimes. By treating everything as a value that is consumed or mutated in place (in-out parameters), Hylo hopes to simplify the mental model of systems programming. It is currently in active research and not yet production-ready.⁵⁹
• Carbon: Initiated by Google, Carbon aims to be an experimental successor to C++, focusing on seamless bidirectional interoperability with existing C++ codebases—something Rust struggles with. It is in very early stages.⁹

9. Comparative Analysis and Synthesis

To provide a general understanding, we can synthesize the landscape into specific trade-offs.

9.1 Data Comparison: Binary Size & Latency

Based on recent benchmarks ⁴⁶:

Language	Binary Size (Hello World)	Compilation Speed	Runtime Safety Check	GC Pause Risk
Zig	~9 KB	Very Fast	Spatial (Debug)	None
Rust	~230 KB	Slow	Temporal + Spatial	None
Nim	~180 KB	Medium	Temporal (ARC)	Negligible (ORC)
Go	~2.1 MB	Very Fast	Temporal (GC)	Low (<1ms)
Swift	~6.4 MB (if static)	Slow	Temporal (ARC)	None (Deterministic)
Ada	~50 KB	Slow	Verified (Static)	None
Crystal	~2 MB	Slow	Temporal (GC)	Medium

9.2 The Safety vs. Productivity Matrix

Approach	Languages	Pros	Cons
Strict Verification	Rust, Ada/SPARK	Guaranteed memory safety; No GC; Thread safety.	Steep learning curve; Slower compilation; High cognitive load.
Deterministic Automation	Swift, Nim	Memory safe without GC pauses; High-level syntax; Excellent interop.	Complexity in RC cycles (though ORC fixes this); Atomic overhead (Swift).
Manual Guardrails	Zig, Odin	Maximum control; Simple mental model; Fast iteration.	Safety is not guaranteed (UAF possible); Reliance on testing.
Managed Runtime	Go, Crystal, D	High developer velocity; Easy concurrency; Fast builds (Go).	GC overhead (latency/memory); Less control over hardware resources.
Novel Theory	Pony	Math-proof concurrency; Zero-stop GC.	Extremely high learning curve; Small ecosystem.

10. Conclusion

The landscape of native, memory-safe languages has expanded well beyond Rust. While Rust remains the dominant choice for general-purpose systems programming due to its massive ecosystem and strict compile-time guarantees, it is not the only answer.

• For domains requiring mathematical correctness and high assurance (avionics, medical), Ada (SPARK) remains the gold standard, offering proofs that exceed Rust’s capabilities.
• For developers who prefer the simplicity of C but want modern tools and spatial safety, Zig and Odin offer a compelling “manual but safe-ish” alternative.
• For those seeking productivity near the level of Python or Ruby but with C-like speed and native binaries, Nim and Crystal are powerful contenders, with Nim offering a unique bridge to C++ ecosystems via transpilation.
• For infrastructure and network services, Go provides the best balance of safety, concurrency, and engineering velocity, accepting the trade-off of a garbage collector.
• Swift is rapidly evolving into a true systems language, with Swift 6 offering data-race guarantees that rival Rust’s, making it a strong candidate for cross-platform application logic.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the specific “cost” the user is willing to pay: the compile-time cost of Rust/Ada’s verification, the runtime cost of Go/Swift’s management, or the vigilance cost of Zig/Odin’s manual control. All these languages successfully demonstrate that the era of unsafe C/C++ dominance is ending, offering a diverse set of safe, native alternatives for the modern engineer.

---

References included via inline citations:.¹

Works cited

1. [Prospective vision] Optional Strict Memory Safety for Swift – Pitches, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forums.swift.org/t/prospective-vision-optional-strict-memory-safety-for-swift/75090
2. From C to Rust to Go: What Native Really Offers Today – DEV Community, accessed December 5, 2025, https://dev.to/matemiller/from-c-to-rust-to-go-what-native-really-offers-today-1c79
3. What languages allow cross-platform native executables to be created? – Stack Overflow, accessed December 5, 2025, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2748548/what-languages-allow-cross-platform-native-executables-to-be-created
4. What is memory safety and why does it matter? – Prossimo, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.memorysafety.org/docs/memory-safety/
5. Safety in Non-Memory-Safe Languages – Evan Ovadia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://verdagon.dev/blog/when-to-use-memory-safe-part-1
6. What is the biggest difference between Garbage Collection and Ownership? – Page 2 – help – The Rust Programming Language Forum, accessed December 5, 2025, https://users.rust-lang.org/t/what-is-the-biggest-difference-between-garbage-collection-and-ownership/78778?page=2
7. It’s Not As Simple As “Use A Memory Safe Language” [S4 events] : r/programming – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1jb4rjb/its_not_as_simple_as_use_a_memory_safe_language/
8. Rust vs Go in 2025 – Rustify, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.rustify.rs/articles/rust-vs-go-in-2025
9. Memory safety : r/ProgrammingLanguages – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/comments/1ihekz8/memory_safety/
10. Memory Safety in a Modern System Programming Language (DLang) Pt. 1 – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/vhfd28/memory_safety_in_a_modern_system_programming/
11. Memory Safety in C++ vs Rust vs Zig | by B Shyam Sundar – Medium, accessed December 5, 2025, https://medium.com/@shyamsundarb/memory-safety-in-c-vs-rust-vs-zig-f78fa903f41e
12. Rust is considered to have a steep learning curve. How much does solid C++ experience impact that curve, relative to languages that hide more of the internal workings? – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/s3yd8u/rust_is_considered_to_have_a_steep_learning_curve/
13. Rust vs Go? Which Should You Learn in 2025 – DEV Community, accessed December 5, 2025, https://dev.to/thatcoolguy/rust-vs-go-which-should-you-choose-in-2024-50k5
14. If Go could turn off its GC optionally like Nim/Crystal, what benefits would you expect? Would it be viable like C/Rust performance for systems dev? Would a company like Discord not have swtiched to Rust from Go if it had this? What are your thoughts? : r/golang – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/junupo/if_go_could_turn_off_its_gc_optionally_like/
15. How does Ada’s memory safety compare against Rust? : r/programming – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1intk5f/how_does_adas_memory_safety_compare_against_rust/
16. The reason Ada Spark is Better than Rust : r/embedded – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/embedded/comments/1m0d0vy/the_reason_ada_spark_is_better_than_rust/
17. Thoughts on Ada / SPARK? Why are you not using Ada / SPARK considering it has su… | Hacker News, accessed December 5, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46007010
18. Is Ada safer than Rust? – Hacker News, accessed December 5, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38498775
19. Rust’s temporal safety for Ada/SPARK – Google Groups, accessed December 5, 2025, https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.ada/c/H35QcYiWR1Y/m/jJNZ0tKqAAAJ
20. SPARK as good as Rust for safer coding? AdaCore cites Nvidia case study – devclass, accessed December 5, 2025, https://devclass.com/2022/11/08/spark-as-good-as-rust-for-safer-coding-adacore-cites-nvidia-case-study/
21. Where is Ada safer than Rust? – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ada/comments/18c2nr4/where_is_ada_safer_than_rust/
22. Comparing the development costs and other benefits of Ada or SPARK vs other languages, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.ada-lang.io/t/comparing-the-development-costs-and-other-benefits-of-ada-or-spark-vs-other-languages/681
23. How (memory) safe is zig?, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.scattered-thoughts.net/writing/how-safe-is-zig/
24. Unsafe code – The Crystal Programming Language, accessed December 5, 2025, https://crystal-lang.org/reference/latest/syntax_and_semantics/unsafe.html
25. When Zig is safer and faster than Rust – zackoverflow, accessed December 5, 2025, https://zackoverflow.dev/writing/unsafe-rust-vs-zig/
26. Questions about Zig’s memory safety, runtime performance differences and roadmap, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Zig/comments/d9e2s2/questions_about_zigs_memory_safety_runtime/
27. Comparing Zig with Odin – General, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.odin-lang.org/t/comparing-zig-with-odin/740
28. Zig vs Odin – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Zig/comments/1gmruzd/zig_vs_odin/
29. Is it true that Odin can’t be as fast as Zig/Rust because all LLVM optimizations aren’t possible?, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.odin-lang.org/t/is-it-true-that-odin-cant-be-as-fast-as-zig-rust-because-all-llvm-optimizations-arent-possible/221
30. What are the pros and cons of Zig vs Rust? I see Zig mentioned more and more her… | Hacker News, accessed December 5, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37447780
31. Memory Safety – Documentation – Swift.org, accessed December 5, 2025, https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/documentation/the-swift-programming-language/memorysafety/
32. Pure ARC in a (low level)programming language : r/Compilers – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Compilers/comments/s6r9wo/pure_arc_in_a_low_levelprogramming_language/
33. Rust vs Swift – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1kddbf6/rust_vs_swift/
34. Data Race Safety | Documentation – Swift.org, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.swift.org/migration/documentation/swift-6-concurrency-migration-guide/dataracesafety/
35. Circumvention of Swift 6 data race detection. · Issue #74820 · swiftlang/swift – GitHub, accessed December 5, 2025, https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/issues/74820
36. Introduction to ARC/ORC in Nim – Nim Blog – Nim Programming Language, accessed December 5, 2025, https://nim-lang.org/blog/2020/10/15/introduction-to-arc-orc-in-nim.html
37. Nim’s new cycle collector – D Programming Language Discussion Forum, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ltafiymtejwgcsnndgsv@forum.dlang.org
38. unique refs > `isolate` – Nim forum, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/10185
39. Usability of ARC/ORC in multi threaded code. – Nim forum, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/10161
40. Which are the companies currently using Nim in production?, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/13387
41. Golang vs Rust: Which Language Wins for Backend in 2025? – Netguru, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.netguru.com/blog/golang-vs-rust
42. Rust vs Go: A Comprehensive Language Comparison – Better Stack, accessed December 5, 2025, https://betterstack.com/community/comparisons/rust-vs-go/
43. Rust vs Go vs Zig for Systems Programming – Better Stack, accessed December 5, 2025, https://betterstack.com/community/comparisons/rust-vs-go-vs-zig/
44. The Crystal Programming Language, accessed December 5, 2025, https://crystal-lang.org/
45. Go vs Crystal: A Developer’s Guide to Choosing Between Two Modern Languages, accessed December 5, 2025, https://letavocado.medium.com/go-vs-crystal-a-developers-guide-to-choosing-between-two-modern-languages-be25b4b6a0e9
46. Crystal VS Go benchmarks, Which programming language or compiler is faster, accessed December 5, 2025, https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/crystal-vs-go
47. A Practical Guide to Parallel Programming in Crystal (2025) – DEV Community, accessed December 5, 2025, https://dev.to/kojix2/a-practical-guide-to-parallel-programming-in-crystal-2025-1lbg
48. Crystal multithreading support, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.crystal-lang.org/t/crystal-multithreading-support/6622
49. Used in production – The Crystal Programming Language, accessed December 5, 2025, https://crystal-lang.org/used_in_prod/
50. Memory-Safe-D-Spec – D Programming Language, accessed December 5, 2025, https://dlang.org/spec/memory-safe-d.html
51. Memory Safety in a Modern Systems Programming Language Part 1 | The D Blog, accessed December 5, 2025, https://dlang.org/blog/2022/06/21/dip1000-memory-safety-in-a-modern-system-programming-language-pt-1/
52. What previews should I enable? – D Programming Language Discussion Forum, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.dlang.org/thread/hhforumzuqvoumkrqwpj@forum.dlang.org
53. Nim safety features like Zig & Rust?, accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/10910
54. Overview of Rust and Pony | Schematron, accessed December 5, 2025, https://schematron.com/offtopic/overview_of_rust_and_pony.html
55. Pony (programming language) – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pony_(programming_language)
56. Memory Allocation at Runtime – Pony Tutorial, accessed December 5, 2025, https://tutorial.ponylang.io/appendices/memory-allocation.html
57. Why Wallaroo Moved From Pony To Rust, accessed December 5, 2025, https://wallarooai.medium.com/why-wallaroo-moved-from-pony-to-rust-292e7339fc34
58. Pony: An actor-model, capabilities-secure, high-performance programming language | Hacker News, accessed December 5, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44719413
59. Hylo | Hylo, accessed December 5, 2025, https://hylo-lang.org/
60. Hylo – The Safe Systems and Generic-programming Language Built on Value Semantics – Dave Abrahams | cpponsea : r/ProgrammingLanguages – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/comments/1f7b8qb/hylo_the_safe_systems_and_genericprogramming/
61. Comparison Rust vs Nim binary sizes for IOT applications (just an FYI if you’re interested), accessed December 5, 2025, https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/5914
62. MichalStrehovsky/sizegame: Compare binary sizes of canonical Hello World in 18 different languages – GitHub, accessed December 5, 2025, https://github.com/MichalStrehovsky/sizegame
63. What makes Pony different?, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.ponylang.io/discover/what-makes-pony-different/
64. Borrowing in Pony (follows the same philosophy of rust, but with the idea of capabilities) – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/50xbef/borrowing_in_pony_follows_the_same_philosophy_of/
65. Swift 6 arrives with improved concurrency, data-race safety – Azalio, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.azalio.io/swift-6-arrives-with-improved-concurrency-data-race-safety/
66. Overview of the Efficient Programming Languages (v.3): C++, Rust, Swift, Scala, Dlang, Kotlin, Nim, Julia, Golang, Python. – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8cw2xn/overview_of_the_efficient_programming_languages/
67. How productive are you in Nim vs Zig? Or vs Odin, C#, Go, Python, etc. – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/nim/comments/1g7xfzn/how_productive_are_you_in_nim_vs_zig_or_vs_odin_c/