not-yet-awesome-embedded-rust VS tlaplus

And a list of things missing: https://github.com/rust-embedded/not-yet-awesome-embedded-ru...

Building a portfolio is a great idea. Also you can find various areas to contribute to Rust. That would give you great exposure. Check out the not yet awesome rust repo (https://github.com/rust-embedded/not-yet-awesome-embedded-rust) for ideas. Also take a look at the rust foundation grant program, it’s open for applications now. There’s also the “this week in Rust” newsletter (https://this-week-in-rust.org) where job openings relative to Rust are also listed. Lastly, you can check my bio for a link where I provide a list of project ideas for different areas in embedded including Rust.

See Not Yet Awesome Embedded Rust for some ongoing work to build out the ecosystem, it's not ready yet. (this is a play on various "Awesome XYZ Rust" lists that have resources for different topics)

Not Yet Awesome Embedded Rust

Here's an interesting discussion, consolidated here. My view is you should use a restricted scope atomic (as best as can be supported) and interact with that through a handler struct. I.e. no global state.

```

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