koka VS FStar

This post by the Koka-author is an update about what's currently being worked on: https://github.com/koka-lang/koka/discussions/339

Some programming language like JS, use path-based imports, that's not good for making a stabel API.

See https://api-extractor.com/pages/setup/configure_rollup/#:~:text=(The%20API%20Extractor,with%20that%20effort.)

And https://github.com/koka-lang/koka/issues/31#issuecomment-1482200826

It also offers a great Inversion of Control mechanism where everything is customisable, and, unlike Capability Objects, AESs also offer compatibility with type inference (you can pass functions doing IO to map, and it Just Works(TM)) and first-class control over stack frames (because really a continuation function is just some stack frames, which you can manually move to the heap if you want a closure; which means async is an effect!). It also is composable in ways Monads are not.

Koka and other languages implementing Algebraic Effect Systems make everything a user-defined case of coroutines: async is just another effect/Monadic type. Zig does something similar by having first class stack frames, making all function calls possibly asynchronous.

Super interesting, there is a proposal to add this to JavaScript and several languages that use this, unison, koka & eff. I had no idea this was even a thing!

Koka, already cited in this thread, early 2010s. Koka's first claim to fame was a usable effect system (at the type were, basically, effect systems were not usable in practice; in fact few languages have managed to do as well as Koka since). Now its author is working on cool implementation strategies for functional languages as well.

I'm a software engineer with 3 years of professional experience. I worked for 2 years at Microsoft on Azure Compute and now work at Google, working on improving Google search. I am the sole maintainer of the popular open-source library microlens with 80k downloads. I've also contributed to the Koka programming language developed at Microsoft Research.

By implementing all of those optimizations in the Koka programming language, they achieved GC overhead much less and execution time faster than the other languages including OCaml, Haskell, and even C++ in several algorithms and data structures that frequently keep common sub-structures of them, such as red-black trees. For more information, see the latest version of the paper.

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/).

Don't get me wrong, there are times when Microsoft got it right the first time that was technically far superior to their competitors. Windows IOCP was theoretically capable of doing C10K as far back in 1994-95 when there wasn't any hardware support yet and UNIX world was bickering over how to do asynchronous I/O. Years later POSIX came up with select which was a shoddy little shit in comparison. Linux caved in finally only as recently as 2019 and implemented io_uring. Microsoft research has contributed some very interesting things to computer science like Z3 SAT solver and in collaboration with INRIA made languages like F* and Low* for formal specification and verification. But all this dwarfs in comparison to all the harm they did.

Most of the proof assistants out there: Lean, Coq, Dafny, Isabelle, F*, Idris 2, and Agda. And the main concepts are dependent types, Homotopy Type Theory AKA HoTT, and Category Theory. Warning: HoTT and Category Theory are really dense, you're going to really need to research them.

F* is a dependently typed language that can be transpiled to idiomatic C via the KReMLin compiler. It’s very ML-ish to write and you can leave out some proofs. It also has the benefit of being used to write a formally verified TLS implementation that’s in wide use throughout industry.

As I said, dependent types attempt to solve this problem. F* is a language where you can express complex logic as a type. The catch is, these types are checked by an SMT solver. If the solver can satisfy the type checking, then great, and you move on. If it can’t, you have no idea why, and either have to guess or manually write the proof anyway. Contrast this with Standard ML which has a proof of the soundness of its type system.

So kind of like F*? https://www.fstar-lang.org/

F*

Nevermind that academia has come up with far safer ways to do a few things but social norms & inertia prevent their wider adoption (well okay, it also has a barrier to entry in the education required to use it but I don't think someone with the knowledge to meaningfully contribute to an OS kernel can be considered uneducated nor unable to learn).

Maybe that's a little off topic here, but if you like fixing bugs, i suspect you might also enjoy showing that there are no bugs at all. Check out languages like F* https://www.fstar-lang.org/ It's a proof-oriented programming language. You can use it to write code that has no bugs at all. And you once you're done, can convert F* to C or other languages.