ATS-Postiats
cargo-crev
Our great sponsors
ATS-Postiats | cargo-crev | |
---|---|---|
18 | 55 | |
349 | 2,030 | |
- | 2.2% | |
0.0 | 7.9 | |
about 1 year ago | 19 days ago | |
ATS | Rust | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
ATS-Postiats
- What is the most feature-rich programming language
- Evolutie limbaje in industrie
-
The Little Typer – The Beauty of Dependent Type Systems, One Step at a Time
This is one of my two favorite books in The Little ...er series. The other is The Rational Schemer. These are two of the most advanced books in the series.
The Little Typer provides an introduction to dependent types. These can by used to guarantee things like "applying 'concat' to a list of length X and list of length Y returns a list of X+Y". It is also possible, to some extent, to use dependent types to replace proof tools like Coq. Two interesting languages using dependent types are:
- Idris. This is basically "strict Haskell plus dependent types": https://www.idris-lang.org/)
- ATS. This is a complex systems-level language with dependent types: http://www.ats-lang.org/
The Rational Schemer shows how to build a Prolog-like logic language as a Scheme library. This is a very good introduction to logic programming and the implementation of backtracking and unification is fascinating.
This is an excellent series overall, but these two books are especially good for people who are interested in unusual programming language designs. I don't expect dependent types or logic programming to become widely-used in the next couple generations of mainstream languages, but they're still fascinating.
-
Does Rust have any design mistakes?
Not being ATS
-
The case against an alternative to C
> any safety checks put into the competing language will have a runtime cost, which often is unacceptable
This is completely wrong. The best counterexample is probably ATS http://www.ats-lang.org which is compatible with C, yet also features dependent types (allowing us to prove arbitrary statements about our programs, and check them at compile time) and linear type (allowing us to precisely track resource usage; similar to Rust)
A good example is http://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/DOCUMENT/ATS2CAIRO/HTML/c36.... which uses the Cairo graphics library, and ends with the following:
> It may seem that using cairo functions in ATS is nearly identical to using them in C (modulo syntatical difference). However, what happens at the level of typechecking in ATS is far more sophisticated than in C. In particular, linear types are assigned to cairo objects (such as contexts, surfaces, patterns, font faces, etc.) in ATS to allow them to be tracked statically, that is, at compile-time, preventing potential mismanagement of such objects. For instance, if the following line:
val () = cairo_surface_destroy (sf) // a type error if omitted
-
Security advisory: malicious crate rustdecimal | Rust Blog
For a low level language in which you actually need to prove that your code doesn't cause UB, see http://www.ats-lang.org/
-
Why is ATS not considered in the design of modern system languages?
Here's the homepage fo the language: http://www.ats-lang.org/. The trick to finding results about with google is to search "ATS programming language".
-
ESPOL, NEWP, Mesa, Cedar, Modula-2, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2, Component Pascal, Active Oberon, D, C#, F#, VB, Ada, Go, Swift, just a few examples.
In SPARK's case, you have to state your invariants in even greater precision than in Rust, and naturally it has worse inference. That's okay, the same happens in a certain language with Atrocious Type Syntax.
-
What are all the situations you can't do compile time type-checking when building a programming language?
Yes, things like mentioned in the post can be expressed and checked statically, as demonstrated by languages like Idris and ATS. ATS might be even more relevant as it's an imperative language too, it can get rather low-level (like talking about properties of C runtime functions) while proving required properties statically, and it includes a solver for certain amount of arithmetics so that you don't need to prove obvious mathematical identities to the compiler. http://www.ats-lang.org/
- Is it possible to make a functional programming language that is equivalent of Rust in terms of performance and resource efficiency?
cargo-crev
-
Hard disk LEDs and noisy machines
In other cases it may be more documented, such as Golangs baked-in telemetry.
There should be better ways to check these problems. The best I have found so far is Crev https://github.com/crev-dev/crev/. It's most used implementation is Cargo-crev https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev, but hopefully it will become more required to use these types of tools. Certainty and metrics about how many eyes have been on a particular script, and what expertise they have would be a huge win for software.
-
Rust Without Crates.io
The main problem the author is talking about is actually about version updates, which in Maven as well as crates.io is up to each lib's author, and is not curated in any way.
There's no technical solution to that, really. Do you think Nexus Firewall can pick up every exploit, or even most? How confident of that are you, and what data do you have to back that up? I don't have any myself, but would not be surprised at all if "hackers" can easily work around their scanning.
However, I don't have a better approach than using scanning tools like Nexus, or as the author proposes, use a curated library repository like Debian is doing (which hopefully gets enough eyeballs to remain secure) or the https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev project (manually reviewed code) also mentioned. It's interesting that they mention C/C++ just rely on distros providing dynamic libs instead which means you don't even control your dependencies versions, some distro does (how reliable is the distro?)... I wonder if that could work for other languages or if it's just as painful as it looks in the C world.
-
I don't care about cookies” extension bought by Avast, users jump ship
For instance, the worst company imaginable may be in charge of software that was once FOSS, and they may change absolutely nothing about it, so it should be fine. However, if a small update is added that does something bad, you should know about it immediately.
The solution seems to be much more clearly in the realm of things like crev: https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev/
Wherein users can get a clear picture of what dependencies are used in the full chain, and how they have been independently reviewed for security and privacy. That's the real solution for the future. A quick score that is available upon display everytime you upgrade, with large warnings for anything above a certain threshold.
-
I think there should be some type of crates vertification especially the popular ones?
The metrics on crates.io are a useful sniff test, but ultimately you need to review things yourself, or trust some contributors and reviewers. Some projects, like cargo crev or cargo vet can help with the process.
-
[Discussion] What crates would you like to see?
You can use cargo-geiger or cargo-crev to check for whether people you trusted (e.g. u/jonhoo ) trust this crate.
-
Pip and cargo are not the same
There is a similar idea being explored with https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev - you trust a reviewer who reviews crates for trustworthiness, as well as other reviewers.
- greater supply chain attack risk due to large dependency trees?
-
Why so many basic features are not part of the standard library?
[cargo-crev](https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev) looks like a good step in the right direction but not really commonly used.
-
“You meant to install ripgrep”
'cargo crev' makes this kind of workflow possible: https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev
-
Difference between cargo-vet and cargo-crev?
The crev folks themselves are no fans of PGP but need a way to security identify that you are in fact the review author, so that's where the id generation comes in. Ultimately crev is just a bunch of repos with text files you sign with IDs. The nice property is that you can chain these together into a web of trust and it's unfortunate that vet doesn't just use the same signed files on repos model as a foundation because even if they don't trust anyone else, we could turn around and trust them.
What are some alternatives?
lean4 - Lean 4 programming language and theorem prover
crates.io - The Rust package registry
chapel - a Productive Parallel Programming Language
stackage - Stable Haskell package sets: vetted consistent packages from Hackage
cicada - An old-school bash-like Unix shell written in Rust
crates.io-index - Registry index for crates.io
c3c - Compiler for the C3 language
serde - Serialization framework for Rust
virgil - A fast and lightweight native programming language
cargo-msrv - 🦀 Find the minimum supported Rust version (MSRV) for your project
HVM - A massively parallel, optimal functional runtime in Rust
Rustup - The Rust toolchain installer