awesome-programming-languages VS tlaplus

There are many cool and awesome languages out there...

https://github.com/ChessMax/awesome-programming-languages seems pretty good. I would love to have some kind of sorting and filtering options, but it is definitely very comprehensive and actively maintained.

There are hundreds of awesome programming languages out there. You are to choose what's more suitable for your goals and interests. Many languages are looking for contributors, testers and so on. Just give it a try.

Behold - the list of 303 languages - from old to new, from mainstream to super obscure. Last updated 4 days ago.

Another curated list of (mostly) opened sourced languages: https://github.com/ChessMax/awesome-programming-languages

Continue working on collecting awesome PLs. Want to say many thanks to all contributors. You are all cool. One of the contributors added 30 PLs to the list. It's incredible. Now the list contains 178 languages. And it's huge. The more will come later. Stay tuned! As always I'm open to any help/contributions (PRs or issue or even ideas).

I'm working on collection list of programming languages. Here is the link https://github.com/ChessMax/awesome-programming-languages. That may be helpful.

```

https://github.com/tlaplus/tlaplus/blob/master/tlatools/org....

In any case, our whole team thinks TLA is great, and we're happy people like you and Ron find it so useful and insightful. We also think it is a very insightful.

There are no tests! There are various ways to test concurrent data structures. You could use a stress test, where you spawn a lot of threads and let them mutate the map in a random way and then check the consistency of the map and some invariants. You could learn TLA+ and write a formal model of the map and then verify it.

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

I wish something like Lamport's TLA+ (https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html) was supported in modern language compilers - perhaps with annotations/macros and a mini formal DSL.

Checking the invariant with assert is also useful in my limited experience with concurrency.

https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html

One advantage of formal methods is in determining "what was expected" (including all the goofy edge cases) without having to burrow into the details of code.

Take a look at Alloy (http://alloytools.org/) and TLA+ (https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html) for example. (Or even the ancient Z ("Zed") notation (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~15819/zedbook.pdf)).

The pcal generator does *not* generate a definition for the set of labels. However, some users have suggested to add such a feature: https://github.com/tlaplus/tlaplus/issues/613