smanikin VS apalache

Yes, this is essentially event-sourced Manikin. You can even have retro-active events, base on git-like patterns (merge, rebase). See Concurrent Worlds and the implementation

Would a library like Manikin (or rather DSL) also count?

FYI: I've implemented another approach based on concurrent worlds. With this system, objects look a bit like Actors, but are essentially purely functional objects.

I've created an embedded DSL, called Manikin that is close to what you are after.

Hi, I've recently finished two posts on a framework called Manikin that I want to share with the community.

Anyone know of some good free software TLA+ model checkers? The "Other Tooling" mentions one alternative checker, https://apalache.informal.systems/, but that's all I could find. Thanks.

> How are those types any different than outright stating a behavioral invariant?

Because the behavior of programs can't be verified without executing the program, but types can be checked purely based on syntax. There is way less source code than runtime states of any non-trivial program.

I've asked this same question many times, the TLA+ way is much more expressive and _simpler_. But model checking is a way harder problem than type checking, in general. SMT solvers make this line blurry - in fact, have you heard of the SMT-based model checker for TLA+, [Apalache](https://apalache.informal.systems/)?. I haven't tried it out, but that should be way faster than TLC which just brute forces the state-space exploration.

I'm totally with you about TLA+ style spec properties, but it's a big theoretical hurdle to cross before they could be as efficient as types.