hylo VS Vale

Or Val[0], now called Hylo (for a good reason), or V[1].

[0] https://www.hylo-lang.org

The evolution of C++ has been a multi-decade history of dealing with difficult reality.

I have great hope that Herb can create with his cppfront project “The Very Best of C++” to carry that tremendous legacy forward.

If I was to throw my hat into a “C++ successor”, it would be https://www.hylo-lang.org/ with its “all the safeties” and “tell you when you’re doing it sub-optimal” approach.

Paper: https://2023.splashcon.org/details/iwaco-2023-papers/5/Borro...

> Hylo is a language for high-level systems programming that promises safety without loss of efficiency. It is based on mutable value semantics, a discipline that emphasizes the independence of values to support local reasoning. The result—in contrast with approaches based on sophisticated aliasing restrictions—is an efficient, expressive language with a simple type system and no need for lifetime annotations.

> Safety guarantees in Hylo programs are verified by an abstract interpreter processing an intermediate representation, Hylo IR, that models lifetime properties with ghost instructions. Further, lifetime constraints are used to eliminate unnecessary memory allocations predictably.

https://www.hylo-lang.org/

https://github.com/Hylo-lang/Hylo

A model without lifetimes is also being explored in other languages, e.g. in Hylo. It sacrifices expressiveness, but on the other hand you don't have to deal with explicit lifetimes!

Why go through all the trouble when you can do this: https://www.hylo-lang.org/ and not spend a second thinking of lifetimes? No, copies will not be issued unless necessary.

Or why not keep exploring this idea as well? More research-oriented than the first one right now, though, so take it with a grain of salt: https://vale.dev/

Get rid of references at the cost of some expressivity (see Hylo, formerly Val)

Not to be confused with Vale[0].

[0] https://vale.dev/

The article says they created a deterministic hypervisor that runs all pseudorandom behavior from a starting seed to enable perfect re-playability.

But that's all we know so far. I'm assuming there'll be some sort of fuzz testing, and static analysis or some defining actions that your software can perform.

Honestly it sounds a lot like it has a lot of crossover with what the Vale language is trying to solve: https://vale.dev/, but focused on trying to get existing software to that state instead of creating a new language to make new software already be at that state by default.

Why go through all the trouble when you can do this: https://www.hylo-lang.org/ and not spend a second thinking of lifetimes? No, copies will not be issued unless necessary.

Or why not keep exploring this idea as well? More research-oriented than the first one right now, though, so take it with a grain of salt: https://vale.dev/

Another relevant language might be Vale (https://vale.dev), which is aiming for "perfect replayability": https://verdagon.dev/blog/perfect-replayability-prototyped

Interesting. Very low level though and C(++) centric. She there any thoughts on combining the hardware and OS features with rust or https://vale.dev ?

Use a runtime memory management solution that's cheaper than garbage collection (see Vale)

This seems like a tool I'll be using, and this is an almost meaningless criticism, but why the name?

There's already the Vale programming language (https://vale.dev/), but moreover, I don't get the meaning of "vale". You could call it something like Englint which actually hints its purpose.