val VS Vale

Once I got to know it, I had to implement a small header library C (available on Github). It allows writing code like this:

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.