rr VS go

I think this tool must share a lot techniques and use cases with rr. I wonder how it compares in various aspects.

https://rr-project.org/

rr "sells" as a "reversible debugger", but it obviously needs the determinism for its record and replay to work, and AFAIK it employs similar techniques regarding system call interception and serializing on a single CPU. The reversible debugger aspect is built on periodic snapshotting on top of it and replaying from those snapshots, AFAIK. They package it in a gdb compatible interface.

Hermit also lists record/replay as a motivation, although it doesn't list reversible debugging in general.

Interesting. Perhaps you can inspect the disassembly of the function in question when using Graal and HotSpot. It is likely related to that.

Another debugging technique we use for heisenbugs is to see if `rr` [1] can reproduce it. If it can then that's great as it allows you to go back in time to debug what may have caused the bug. But `rr` is often not great for concurrency bugs since it emulates a single-core machine. Though debugging a VM is generally a nightmare. What we desperately need is a debugger that can debug both the VM and the language running on top of it. Usually it's one or the other.

> In general I’d argue you haven’t fixed a bug unless you understand why it happened and why your fix worked, which makes this frustrating, since every indication is that the bug exists within proprietary code that is out of my reach.

Were you using Oracle GraalVM? GraalVM community edition is open source, so maybe it's worth checking if it is reproducible in that.

[1]: https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr

https://rr-project.org/ had the same problem. They use the retired conditional branch counter instead of instruction counter, and then instruction steeping until at the correct address.

That'll work great for your Distributed QSort Incorporated startup, where the only product is a sorting algorithm.

Formal software verification is very useful. But what can be usefully formalized is rather limited, and what can be formalized correctly in practice is even more limited. That means you need to restrict your scope to something sane and useful. As a result, in the real world running thousands of tests is practically useful. (Well, it depends on what those tests are; it's easy to write 1000s of tests that either test the same thing, or only test the things that will pass and not the things that would fail.) They are especially useful if running in a mode where the unexpected happens often, as it sounds like this system can do. (It's reminiscent of rr's chaos mode -- https://rr-project.org/ linking to https://robert.ocallahan.org/2016/02/introducing-rr-chaos-mo... )

The approach of check-pointing computation such that it is resumable and restartable sounds similar to a time-traveling debugger, like rr or WinDbg:

https://rr-project.org/

https://learn.microsoft.com/windows-hardware/drivers/debugge...

https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr?tab=readme-ov-file#system-...

There used to be the GO FIPS branch :

https://github.com/golang/go/tree/dev.boringcrypto/misc/bori...

But it looks dead.

And it looks like https://github.com/golang-fips/go as well.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by acknowledgement, but here are some counterexamples:

- A proposal for sum types by a Go team member: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/57644

- The community proposal with some comments from the Go team: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/19412

Here are some excerpts from the latest Go survey [1]:

- "The top responses in the closed-form were learning how to write Go effectively (15%) and the verbosity of error handling (13%)."

- "The most common response mentioned Go’s type system, and often asked specifically for enums, option types, or sum types in Go."

I think the problem is not the lack of will on the part of the Go team, but rather that these issues are not easy to fix in a way that fits the language and doesn't cause too many issues with backwards compatibility.

[1]: https://go.dev/blog/survey2024-h1-results

Now, I’m not going to use C++ again; I left that chapter years ago, and it’s not going to happen. C++ isn’t memory safe and easy to use and would require extended time for developers to adapt. Rust is the new kid on the block, but I’ve heard mixed opinions about its developer experience, and there aren’t many libraries around it yet. LLRD is too new for my taste, but **Go** caught my attention.

Generative AI development has been democratised, thanks to powerful Machine Learning models (specifically Large Language Models such as Claude, Meta's LLama 2, etc.) being exposed by managed platforms/services as API calls. This frees developers from the infrastructure concerns and lets them focus on the core business problems. This also means that developers are free to use the programming language best suited for their solution. Python has typically been the go-to language when it comes to AI/ML solutions, but there is more flexibility in this area. In this post you will see how to leverage the Go programming language to use Vector Databases and techniques such as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) with langchaingo. If you are a Go developer who wants to how to build learn generative AI applications, you are in the right place!

net/http: add methods and path variables to ServeMux patterns Discussion about ServeMux enhancements

Make sure you have Go installed https://go.dev/.

The Go Programming Language

When Go first shipped, it was already well-documented that the only stable ABI on some platforms was via dynamic libraries (such as libc) provided by said platforms. Go knowingly and deliberately ignored this on the assumption that they can get away with it. And then this happened:

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/16606

If that's not "getting burned", I don't know what is. "Trying to provide a nice feature" is an excuse, and it can be argued that it is a valid one, but nevertheless they knew that they were using an unstable ABI that could be pulled out from under them at any moment, and decided that it's worth the risk. I don't see what that has to do with "not being as broadly compatible as they had hoped", since it was all known well in advance.