specification
stc
specification | stc | |
---|---|---|
18 | 18 | |
386 | 5,710 | |
0.5% | 0.2% | |
8.0 | 8.4 | |
2 days ago | 3 months ago | |
Python | Rust | |
- | 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.
specification
-
Improving Interoperability Between Rust and C++
Many people misunderstand how software is written in regulated industries, and assume that a standard is necessary. In practice, this is not the case. Note that Ferrocene[1] had to produce a specification[2] in order to qualify the compiler. But there isn't a requirement that it must be a standard in any way, only that it describes how the Ferrocene compiler works. Nor that it be accepted by upstream.
1: https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/officially-qualified-ferroc...
2: https://github.com/ferrocene/specification
-
Aerugo – RTOS for aerospace uses written in Rust
If by "no standard" you mean that there is no language specification for rust, then there is no standard. However, a language specification is not sufficient to verify program correctness, nor is it required.
A standard may (and the C standard for example does) leave parts of the behavior as "implementation specific" and there's quite a few edge cases - and that's not even talking about "undefined behavior", of which there is plenty. An even in the behavior that is neither implementation specific nor undefined you'll find enough rope to hang yourself (all the beautiful pointers).
On the other hand, the rust language - while having no formal spec - is fairly well described, in the form of its RFCs and testsuite. We (the ferrocene team) were able to derive a descriptive specification from the existing description fairly easily. So while there is no ISO standard, and no spec that would be sufficient to write a competing implementation, there is a description of what the language behaves like. You can read up on it at https://spec.ferrocene.dev/
As for verification of correct behavior of such a program, you can employ a host of different techniques depending on what your requirements are - down to verification of the produced bytecode by means of blackbox testing or other.
-
Progress toward a GCC-based Rust compiler
They created a specification for Ferrocene because Rust does not yet have a language standard:
https://spec.ferrocene.dev/
>> But does the language need a standard?
Yes, Rust needs a standard.
>> And if so, then for what purpose?
For the same purpose that all standards have--to formally define it in writing.
Ferrocene's web site (https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/) shows that it meets the ISO 26262 standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_26262).
Why does ISO 26262 matter? What purpose does it serve? Couldn't a vehicle manufacturer just say "our vehicles are safe"? Which would you trust more: a vehicle that is verified to meet ISO 26262 standards, or a vehicle whose manufacturer tells you "it's safe"?
-
Officially Qualified – Ferrocene
https://github.com/ferrocene/specification
They do say any differences between it and upstream behavior or documentation is a defect in the spec, not upstream. So it isn't authoritative. Unless we all decide it is.
-
A Guide to Undefined Behavior in C and C++
>> The spec does not define the software. The software is as the software does. Having or not having a spec doesn't protect from bugs - people do.
>> What you're taking about is covering one's ass, not specification.
They are related.
In safety-critical software, bugs can cause people to die. Without a spec, no one will use Rust for safety critical software. It would be too risky and no company would accept that level of risk.
For example if software that controls an airplane is written in Rust and an error occurs during flight, what happens? The software can't just panic and crash or the airplane might crash.
The Ferrocene project (https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/) is working on producing a safety-critical Rust specification (https://github.com/ferrocene/specification) because having a language specification matters for safety-critical work.
-
A Decade of Rust, and Announcing Ferrocene
I'd like to clarify a little here: There's an ISO certifiation in here - but it's not an ISO standard for the language.
Essentially, the ISO 26262 certification verifies that the compiler release process conforms to a certain standard. It does not create an ISO standard for rust, not does it aim to. At part of the certification process we had to write a spec for the rust language, but it is a descriptive spec of how certain aspects of the rust language behave for one specific release of the compiler.
The certification builds on this to ensure that tests catch deviations from the spec, known problems are documented etc. So rust as a language is unaffected, as is the rust project. The spec is open source and might be useful to others, you can find it at https://spec.ferrocene.dev/
The target sectors for ISO 26262 and related industrial certification are clearly sectors that require such certification: automotive, medical, etc.
Ferrocene itself however, is not only the ISO certified downstream of the rust compiler, it also offers for example long term support and tracking of known issues which the rust project does not provide. This is also important for certain applications that do not strictly require certifications.
- Ferrocene Language Specification
-
Rust has been forked to the Crab Language
>> Rust is defined by the implementation.
Hopefully not for long:
https://github.com/ferrocene/specification
https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/the-ferrocene-language-spec...
Hopefully Ferrocene can lead to Rust itself being standardized.
To me, it seems inevitable that there will be multiple implementations of Rust, especially if Rust continues to be more widely adopted and used in new domains.
I would also not be surprised if Rust were to adopt optional language extensions for specialized use cases, similar to Ada's language annexes:
http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/22rm/html/RM-1-1-2.html
Why? Because the Rust implementation you use for video game programming does not need all of the same features as the Rust implementation that you use for safety-critical embedded systems (for example: railroad control software).
-
GCC 13 and the state of gccrs
That’s an easy enough problem to solve (though time consuming), and Ferrocene is working on it. Having >1 compiler implement the spec is just a human fuzz test that finds edge cases, and that’s a good thing.
-
Rust in Automotive
I don't know what ISO-26262 requires, but for IEC-61508 only requires "The language should be fully and unambiguously defined." - which I think Ferrocene has taken a decent stab at with https://spec.ferrocene.dev , and an accompanying ISO standard is not a hard requirement.
stc
- STC (Rust-based TypeScript type checker) is officially abandoned
-
TypeScript Is Surprisingly OK for Compilers
Wonder no more: https://github.com/dudykr/stc
Written in Rust by the (lead?) dev of SWC
SWC (speedy web compiler) compiles TS to JS
-
Show HN: Ezno, a TypeScript checker written in Rust, is now open source
The analogy (by swc's author) would be https://github.com/dudykr/stc
-
How do people use Zod on a large project?
I'm also hoping for STC https://stc.dudy.dev/ but I don't think it will be released any time soon.
-
What are some stuff that Rust isn't good at?
MyPy and tsc on the other hand? Please make a Ruff for MyPy and hurry up and fund the author of SWC to develop STC. I'm tired of waiting several seconds after each :w for my quickcheck window to update.
-
TypeScript 5.0
>If we could push JavaScript performance to be another order of magnitude faster
And it would speed up the TypeScript Compiler.
My bet is:
TypeScript typechecker in Rust:
https://github.com/dudykr/stc
-
No one cares about Bun's speed. Your CI does though
typescript(tsc) is the only one that does type checking.
bun, deno, esbuild, swc etc. can parse the syntax, but they chuck the TS (they probably don't even add it to the AST, but I haven't checked).
Keeping up with syntax is very doable. It doesn't change often, and updating the parser when it does isn't much work.
There are some past/ongoing projects[1][2] to create type checkers faster than tsc, but they aren't going to reach full parity and probably don't plan on keeping up with language features.
[1] https://github.com/dudykr/stc
- Open sourcing Ezno – JavaScript compiler and TypeScript checker written in Rust
-
What would you rewrite in Rust?
Well the checker is in progress.
- TypeScript type checker written in Rust
What are some alternatives?
bc - An implementation of the POSIX bc calculator with GNU extensions and dc, moved away from GitHub. Finished, but well-maintained.
mlib - Library of generic and type safe containers in pure C language (C99 or C11) for a wide collection of container (comparable to the C++ STL).
crab - A community fork of a language named after a plant fungus. All of the memory-safe features you love, now with 100% less bureaucracy!
Containers - This library provides various containers. Each container has utility functions to manipulate the data it holds. This is an abstraction as to not have to manually manage and reallocate memory.
polonius - Defines the Rust borrow checker.
ctl - The C Template Library
windows-rs - Rust for Windows
this-week-in-rust - Data for this-week-in-rust.org
compiler-team - A home for compiler team planning documents, meeting minutes, and other such things.
swc - Rust-based platform for the Web
picosat_elixir - Elixir + Erlang bindings for the PicoSAT solver
NuDB - NuDB: A fast key/value insert-only database for SSD drives in C++11