Kind
dafny
Kind | dafny | |
---|---|---|
21 | 32 | |
2,565 | 2,763 | |
- | 4.4% | |
9.5 | 9.7 | |
over 1 year ago | 6 days ago | |
Rust | C# | |
MIT License | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
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.
Kind
-
Eliezer Yudkowsky has great news: "Parents conceiving today may have a fair chance of their kids living to see kindergarten."
As a developer of a proof assistant (Kind) I'm highly interested in this line of work. Can you point me to some of these papers? And perhaps people involved in this line of work?
- Somos os devs da HVM, o compilador Brasileiro que rodou o mundo. Vamos colocar nosso logo no /r/place?
-
A list of new budding programming languages and their interesting features?
Kind: A modern proof language (though functional).
- Fornjot: A next-generation Code-CAD application
-
How to handle list / contiguous array definition and implementation in a type system?
I have seen in languages like KindLang the definition of Array be like a Binary tree, but there is some magic there in the definition of the Array type that I don't understand yet. Also, I don't want to define the contiguous array further., it should be a literal contiguous array. The Kind "Word" type definition (arbitrary number of bytes) is closer to my contiguous array, but it has a similarly complex definition which like I said I don't understand.
-
Type Checking as Calculation
Totally agree about the Blub Paradox, but there's definitely value in Self Types. See, for example, [Kind](https://github.com/Kindelia/Kind), which is able to type recursive data types by using Self Types.
-
Please, keep in mind there is ZERO FUNDING for my projects.
For these who don't know, I'm the author of Kind and HVM. I've recently seen a criticism from an influent person in the community, who I often took as an inspiration, that made me really sad. "the guy behind this has built some impressive-sounding stuff before... it looks like his projects tend to just... go nowhere and he just abandons them and does something else?"
-
Is it possible to make join work for arbitrary depths?
This is very easy with dependent types! For example, in Kind:
- A massively parallel, optimal functional runtime in Rust
- Eu acabei de lançar um dos "compiladores" mais rápidos do mundo. Apoiem o trabalho brasileiro!
dafny
-
Verified Rust for low-level systems code
For those that are interested but perhaps not aware in this similar project, Dafny is a "verification-aware programming language" that can compile to rust: https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny
- Dafny is a verification-aware programming language
- Candy – a minimalistic functional programming language
- Dafny – a verification-aware programming language
-
Lean4 helped Terence Tao discover a small bug in his recent paper
Code correctness is a lost art. I requirement to think in abstractions is what scares a lot of devs to avoid it. The higher abstraction language (formal specs) focus on a dedicated language to describe code, whereas lower abstractions (code contracts) basically replace validation logic with a better model.
C# once had Code Contracts[1]; a simple yet powerful way to make formal specifications. The contracts was checked at compile time using the Z3 SMT solver[2]. It was unfortunately deprecated after a few years[3] and once removed from the .NET Runtime it was declared dead.
The closest thing C# now have is probably Dafny[4] while the C# dev guys still try to figure out how to implement it directly in the language[5].
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/code-contra...
[2] https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3
[3] https://github.com/microsoft/CodeContracts
[4] https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny
[5] https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/105
-
The Deep Link Equating Math Proofs and Computer Programs
I don't think something that specific exists. There are a very large number of formal methods tools, each with different specialties / domains.
For verification with proof assistants, [Software Foundations](https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/) and [Concrete Semantics](http://concrete-semantics.org/) are both solid.
For verification via model checking, you can check out [Learn TLA+](https://learntla.com/), and the more theoretical [Specifying Systems](https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/book-02-08-08.pdf).
For more theory, check out [Formal Reasoning About Programs](http://adam.chlipala.net/frap/).
And for general projects look at [F*](https://www.fstar-lang.org/) and [Dafny](https://dafny.org/).
- Dafny
- The Dafny Programming and Verification Language
-
In Which I Claim Rich Hickey Is Wrong
Dafny and Whiley are two examples with explicit verification support. Idris and other dependently typed languages should all be rich enough to express the required predicate but might not necessarily be able to accept a reasonable implementation as proof. Isabelle, Lean, Coq, and other theorem provers definitely can express the capability but aren't going to churn out much in the way of executable programs; they're more useful to guide an implementation in a more practical functional language but then the proof is separated from the implementation, and you could also use tools like TLA+.
https://dafny.org/
https://whiley.org/
https://www.idris-lang.org/
https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
https://leanprover.github.io/
https://coq.inria.fr/
http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html
-
Programming Languages Going Above and Beyond
> I think we can assume it won't be as efficient has hand written code
Actually, surprisingly, not necessarily the case!
If you'll refer to the discussion in https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny/issues/601 and in https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny/issues/547, Dafny can statically prove that certain compiler branches are not possible and will never be taken (such as out-of-bounds on index access, logical assumptions about whether a value is greater than or less than some other value, etc). This lets you code in the assumptions (__assume in C++ or unreachable_unchecked() under rust) that will allow the compiler to optimize the codegen using this information.
What are some alternatives?
HVM - A massively parallel, optimal functional runtime in Rust
tlaplus - TLC is a model checker for specifications written in TLA+. The TLA+Toolbox is an IDE for TLA+.
opencascade.js - Port of the OpenCascade CAD library to JavaScript and WebAssembly via Emscripten.
FStar - A Proof-oriented Programming Language
CascadeStudio - A Full Live-Scripted CAD Kernel in the Browser
rust - Rust for the xtensa architecture. Built in targets for the ESP32 and ESP8266
urweb - The Ur/Web programming language
koka - Koka language compiler and interpreter
awesome-rust-formalized-reasoning - An exhaustive list of all Rust resources regarding automated or semi-automated formalization efforts in any area, constructive mathematics, formal algorithms, and program verification.
Rust-for-Linux - Adding support for the Rust language to the Linux kernel.
awesome-programming-languages - The list of an awesome programming languages that you might be interested in
interactive - .NET Interactive combines the power of .NET with many other languages to create notebooks, REPLs, and embedded coding experiences. Share code, explore data, write, and learn across your apps in ways you couldn't before.