closure-compiler VS seL4

The most well-known tools that rely on JSDoc are Closure Compiler (not to be confused with the Closure programming language) and TypeScript. Both of these tools can help make your JavaScript typed, but they approach it differently. Closure Compiler primarily focuses on enhancing your .js files by adding typing through JSDoc annotations (after all, they are just comments), while TypeScript is designed for .ts files, introducing its own well-known TypeScript constructs such as type, interface, enum, namespace, and so on.

Closure Compiler follows the same line of thinking:

https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/wiki/FAQ#closure-...

I think only Google Closure Compiler did some optimizations based on its JSDoc-style annotations (see docs). If I remember correctly, types mostly allowed renaming objects' properties across modules, but most other advanced optimizations (like dead code elimination or functions inlining) didn't rely on types. In my experience properties renaming resulted in subtle, hard to discover bugs and I'd say they didn't bring much benefit.

The @template tag is supported by Google Closure Compiler

i'm not sure you want them to write back https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/pull/3958

time to fork

I just came across the Google Closure Compiler. As the documentation says, it does not create machine code, but rather, "compiles JavaScript to better JavaScript".

> People like to snob Unix but the fact is: the world runs on Unix.

The world you are aware of runs on it.

> Can we really do that much better or is it just hubris?

Yes. Have a look at seL4[1] and Barrelfish too[2], even though that's no longer active. seL4 in particular is powering a lot of highly secure computing systems. There is a surprisingly large sphere outside of Unix/POSIX.

[1] https://sel4.systems/

[2] https://barrelfish.org/

There are also RTOS-capable microkernels such as seL4[0], with few but extremely fast syscalls[1]. Note times are in cycles, not usec.

0. https://sel4.systems/

1. https://sel4.systems/About/Performance/

https://sel4.systems

Working on a number of platforms, verified on some. Multicore support is an ongoing effort afaict.

On OS built on this kernel is still subject to some assumptions (like, hardware working correctly, bootloader doing its job, etc). But mostly those assumptions are less of a problem / easier to prove than the properties of a complex software system.

As I understand it, guarantees that seL4 does provide, go well beyond anything else currently out there.

Take a look at this: https://sel4.systems/

It's probably have to be seL4 (https://sel4.systems), running on some fully OSS hardware.

There are question marks over much of available RISC-V chips due to chinese producers, so maybe OpenPower based hardware?

Plus, the entire system (motherboard, etc) would need to be manufactured using a good supply chain.

Hmmm, this has probably all been thought through in depth before by others. :)

You can use it to (mostly) validate small snippets are the same. See Alive2 for the application of Z3/formalization of programs as SMT for that [1]. As far as I'm aware there are some problems scaling up to arbitrarily sized programs due to a lack of formalization in higher level languages in addition to computational constraints. With a lot of time and effort it can be done though [2].

1. https://github.com/AliveToolkit/alive2

2. https://sel4.systems/

Formal methods. This is not in most general-purpose programming languages and probably never will be (maybe we'll see formal methods to verify unsafe code in Rust...) because it's a ton of boilerplate (you have to help the compiler type-check your code) and also extremely complicated. However, formal methods is very important for proving code secure, such as sel4 (microkernel formally verified to not have bugs or be exploitable) which has just received the ACM Software Systems Award 3 days ago.

Today we'd look at seL4.