sixten VS Vale

Immutable data structures don't necessarily require more memory: they can avoid deep copies. They are also automatically thread safe without expensive (slow) locking mechanisms. They also don't necessarily reduce cache locality. The reduced cache locality in the case of Haskell (I think) mainly comes from the representation of objects in its implementation (improved STG) which uses extensive boxing and jumps that hinder both spatial and temporal locality (require review/comment from GHC/Computer Architecture experts, take it with a grain of salt). Objects can be much more efficiently represented if not for the need to implement lazy (call-by-need) semantics. See sixten and futhark for examples.

[Sixten](https://github.com/ollef/sixten): functional programming with unboxed data by default.

I can't answer this well and don't know of any resources, but I have seen it before in the parser for sixten:

    https://github.com/ollef/sixten/blob/60d46eee20abd62599badea85774a9365c81af45/src/Frontend/Parse.hs#L458

Sixten is a language that allows precise control over memory layout of algebraic data types.

For something more peripherally related, check out Sixten. Its focus is on using unboxed value representations, which is in spirit close to what you are proposing, and some of its ideas might be good inspiration.

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.