xUnit VS Graal

Several well-known NuGet packages such as xUnit.net, FluentAssertions, StyleCop, Entity Framework Core, and others include by default a significant number of Roslyn analyzers. They help you adhere to the conventions and best practices of these libraries.

Most of my rules apply to document types, so let's build some tests for document types. We start by creating a new test class and a new test function and getting a list of all document types. This test is created using xUnit and FluentAssertions:

xUnit -> https://xunit.net/

.NET / xUnit / NUnit / MSTest

This library extends the traditional assertions provided by frameworks like MSTest, NUnit, or XUnit by offering a more extensive set of extension methods. Fluent Assertions supports a wide range of types like collections, strings, and objects and even allows for more advanced assertions like throwing exceptions.

You can verify the functionality of this validator by writing the following tests (using xUnit):

The git repo has other runners. AssemblyRunner appears to be the best fit for an already compiled tests project, but there is a runner that can be wrapped into an MSBuild task for example.

At this point you're going to see a familiar screen asking you to select a project. Here we're looking for a test project. By default, Visual Studio gives you access to 3 different testing frameworks based on your choice of project. These are MSTest, XUnit and NUnit. Ultimately, all 3 of these testing accomplish the same thing, and I've worked with all of them at various points in my career. The difference is mainly in exact syntax and documentation. Although, it's generally considered that MSTest is a little "older" than NUnit or XUnit, so I tend to see it less now. For the purposes of this demo, I'm going to go with NUnit:

xUnit unit tests tool

Use a testing framework: Utilize a testing framework like NUnit, xUnit, or MSTest to create, organize, and run your tests. These frameworks provide a consistent way to write tests, generate test reports, and integrate with continuous integration tools.

Contrary to what vocal Kotlin advocates might believe, Kotlin only matters on Android, and that is thanks to Google pushing it no matter what.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-top-programming-languages-2023

https://snyk.io/reports/jvm-ecosystem-report-2021/

And even so, they had to conceed Android and Kotlin on their own, without the Java ecosystem aren't really much useful, thus ART is now updatable via Play Store, and currently supports OpenJDK 17 LTS on Android 12 and later devices.

As for your question regarding numbers, mostly Java 74.6%, C++ 13.7%, on the OpenJDK, other JVM implementations differ, e.g. GraalVM is mostly Java 91.8%, C 3.6%.

https://github.com/openjdk/jdk

https://github.com/oracle/graal

Two examples from many others, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines

Pkl was built using the GraalVM Truffle framework. So it supports runtime compilation using Futurama Projections. We have been working with Apple on this for a while, and I am quite happy that we can finally read the sources!

https://github.com/oracle/graal/tree/master/truffle

Disclaimer: graalvm dev here.

That's pretty interesting. It's not as aggressive as Bee sounds, but the Espresso JVM is somewhat similar in concept. It's a full blown JVM written in Java with all the mod cons, which can either be compiled ahead of time down to memory-efficient native code giving something similar to a JVM written in C++, or run itself as a Java application on top of another JVM. In the latter mode it obviously doesn't achieve top-tier performance, but the advantage is you can easily hack on it using all the regular Java tools, including hotswapping using the debugger.

When run like this, the bytecode interpreter, runtime system and JIT compiler are all regular Java that can be debugged, edited, explored in the IDE, recompiled quickly and so on. Only the GC is provided by the host system. If you compile it to native code, the GC is also written in Java (with some special conventions to allow for convenient direct memory access).

What's most interesting is that Espresso isn't a direct translation of what a classical C++ VM would look like. It's built on the Truffle framework, so the code is extremely high level compared to traditional VM code. Details like how exactly transitions between the interpreter/compiled code happen, how you communicate pointer maps to the GC and so on are all abstracted away. You don't even have to invoke the JIT compiler manually, that's done for you too. The only code Espresso really needs is that which defines the semantics of the Java bytecode language and associated tools like the JDWP debugger protocol.

https://github.com/oracle/graal/tree/master/espresso

This design makes it easy to experiment with new VM features that would be too difficult or expensive to implement otherwise. For example it implements full hotswap capability that lets you arbitrarily redefine code and data on the fly. Espresso can also fully self-host recursively without limit, meaning you can achieve something like what's described in the paper by running Espresso on top of Espresso.

I'm also using GraalVM if that's of any help.

Quarkus is one of Java frameworks for microservices development and cloud-native deployment. It is developed as container-first stack and working with GraalVM and HotSpot virtual machines (VM).

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply DCEVM went poof, just that I was sad it didn't make it into OpenJDK so one need not do JDK silliness between the production one and the "debugging one" since my experience is that's an absolutely stellar way to produce Heisenbugs

And I'll be straight: Graal scares me 'cause Oracle but I just checked and it looks to the casual observer that it's straight-up GPLv2 now so maybe my fears need revisiting: https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/vm-23.1.0/LICENSE

> to be compiled to a single executable is a strength that Java does not have

I think this is very outdated claim: https://www.graalvm.org/

https://github.com/oracle/graal/issues/7182