rust.ko
dafny
rust.ko | dafny | |
---|---|---|
1 | 32 | |
889 | 2,763 | |
- | 4.4% | |
0.0 | 9.7 | |
about 3 years ago | 6 days ago | |
Rust | C# | |
- | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
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.
rust.ko
-
Linux Rust Support
To be fair, I was just a teenager back then and I was out of kernel development for quite a few years afterwards.
But you are right, this is not coming from the Rust community itself. In fact, several independent groups have been thinking of using Rust in one way or another for kernel purposes, as early as... 2013 (!), e.g. from Taesoo Kim:
https://github.com/tsgates/rust.ko/commit/58f0fb8fdf4063f5b24a09cbfeec81bf28a9d81b
dafny
-
Verified Rust for low-level systems code
For those that are interested but perhaps not aware in this similar project, Dafny is a "verification-aware programming language" that can compile to rust: https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny
- Dafny is a verification-aware programming language
- Candy – a minimalistic functional programming language
- Dafny – a verification-aware programming language
-
Lean4 helped Terence Tao discover a small bug in his recent paper
Code correctness is a lost art. I requirement to think in abstractions is what scares a lot of devs to avoid it. The higher abstraction language (formal specs) focus on a dedicated language to describe code, whereas lower abstractions (code contracts) basically replace validation logic with a better model.
C# once had Code Contracts[1]; a simple yet powerful way to make formal specifications. The contracts was checked at compile time using the Z3 SMT solver[2]. It was unfortunately deprecated after a few years[3] and once removed from the .NET Runtime it was declared dead.
The closest thing C# now have is probably Dafny[4] while the C# dev guys still try to figure out how to implement it directly in the language[5].
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/code-contra...
[2] https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3
[3] https://github.com/microsoft/CodeContracts
[4] https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny
[5] https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/105
-
The Deep Link Equating Math Proofs and Computer Programs
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/).
- Dafny
- The Dafny Programming and Verification Language
-
In Which I Claim Rich Hickey Is Wrong
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
-
Programming Languages Going Above and Beyond
> I think we can assume it won't be as efficient has hand written code
Actually, surprisingly, not necessarily the case!
If you'll refer to the discussion in https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny/issues/601 and in https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny/issues/547, Dafny can statically prove that certain compiler branches are not possible and will never be taken (such as out-of-bounds on index access, logical assumptions about whether a value is greater than or less than some other value, etc). This lets you code in the assumptions (__assume in C++ or unreachable_unchecked() under rust) that will allow the compiler to optimize the codegen using this information.
What are some alternatives?
checkedc - Checked C is an extension to C that lets programmers write C code that is guaranteed by the compiler to be type-safe. The goal is to let people easily make their existing C code type-safe and eliminate entire classes of errors. Checked C does not address use-after-free errors. This repo has a wiki for Checked C, sample code, the specification, and test code.
tlaplus - TLC is a model checker for specifications written in TLA+. The TLA+Toolbox is an IDE for TLA+.
koka - Koka language compiler and interpreter
FStar - A Proof-oriented Programming Language
rust - Rust for the xtensa architecture. Built in targets for the ESP32 and ESP8266
Rust-for-Linux - Adding support for the Rust language to the Linux kernel.
interactive - .NET Interactive combines the power of .NET with many other languages to create notebooks, REPLs, and embedded coding experiences. Share code, explore data, write, and learn across your apps in ways you couldn't before.
rust - Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
unsafe-code-guidelines - Forum for discussion about what unsafe code can and can't do