Hmmm, I work providing the toolchains for a popular embedded realtime OS used in many safety-critical applications including auto and I have seen a rise in demand for Ada. Not ADA of course, which is an American law and does not apply to most international manufacturers.
I've also had queries about Rust, but it's not going to be available in safety-critical systems for many years. Part of the safety argument is toolchain adherence to a published standard, and there is no such thing for the Rusts (any version). In the in-dash infotainment systems anything goes, so they often run Linux (unsafe) and Python (unsafe) or even Perl (unsafe).
for FOSS the reference implementation is co-created by the consumers of the software. the users will only accept a new release if it fits their functional needs and passes their verifications.
the Linux kernel, the toolchain, or libraries like ssl libs are co created by the very organisations that consume the software. FB, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM with red hat, Suse, Oracle, SAP they all concrete the Linux kernel, and for each kernel release they validate, each of them, the technology.
that's how the reference implementation _is_ the standard.
same goes for rust, which brilliantly leverages build automation of the cargo package repository to protect the compiler and toolchain from regressions:
I've also had queries about Rust, but it's not going to be available in safety-critical systems for many years. Part of the safety argument is toolchain adherence to a published standard, and there is no such thing for the Rusts (any version). In the in-dash infotainment systems anything goes, so they often run Linux (unsafe) and Python (unsafe) or even Perl (unsafe).