Sail Alternatives

Similar projects and alternatives to sail

riscv-isa-manual

41 3,282 9.7 TeX sail VS riscv-isa-manual

RISC-V Instruction Set Manual
dafny

31 2,763 9.7 C# sail VS dafny

Dafny is a verification-aware programming language
WorkOS

workos.com featured

The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
riscv-profiles

21 83 8.2 Makefile sail VS riscv-profiles

RISC-V Architecture Profiles
sail-riscv

9 390 8.2 Coq sail VS sail-riscv

Sail RISC-V model
Barliman

3 1,039 0.0 Scheme sail VS Barliman

Prototype smart text editor
candy

3 312 9.9 Rust sail VS candy

🍭 A sweet, functional programming language that is robust, minimalistic, and expressive. (by candy-lang)
asciidoctor-sail

1 1 1.0 Ruby sail VS asciidoctor-sail

Sail Asciidoctor plugin
InfluxDB

www.influxdata.com featured

Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
riscv-isa-manual

1 1 - TeX sail VS riscv-isa-manual

RISC-V Instruction Set Manual (by rems-project)

NOTE: The number of mentions on this list indicates mentions on common posts plus user suggested alternatives. Hence, a higher number means a better sail alternative or higher similarity.

Suggest an alternative to sail

sail reviews and mentions

Posts with mentions or reviews of sail. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects. The last one was on 2024-04-28.

How to improve the RISC-V specification
9 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 28 Apr 2024

Sail is pretty similar to ASL (both current ASL and ASL 1.0) except that (1) it has a more expressive type system, so that bitvector lengths can all be statically checked, (2) it has proper tagged unions and pattern matching, and (3) there's a wide range of open-source tooling available, for execution, specification coverage, generating emulators, integrating with relaxed concurrency models, generating theorem-prover definitions, etc. We've recently updated the Sail README, which spells some of this out: https://github.com/rems-project/sail .
As Alastair Reid says, one of the main things missing in the current RISC-V specification documents is simply that the associated Sail definitions are not yet interspersed with the prose instruction descriptions. The infrastructure to do that has been available for some time, in the Sail AsciiDoc support by Alasdair Armstrong (https://github.com/Alasdair/asciidoctor-sail/blob/master/doc...) and older LaTeX versions by Prashanth Mundkur and Alasdair (https://github.com/rems-project/riscv-isa-manual/blob/sail/r...).
Candy – a minimalistic functional programming language
5 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 24 Feb 2024

That's completely feasible and there are languages that do this. It doesn't really eliminate the need to run your program unless the inputs to your program are also completely restricted types like One, Two, Three. In which case yeah, you don't need to run it and the type system can just tell you the answer.
I believe you can do that sort of thing in loads of type systems, e.g. Typescript, but there are languages that intentionally support it. I use a niche DSL that has fancy types like this called Sail. https://github.com/rems-project/sail
In my experience the downsides of these fancy "first class type systems" are
1. More incomprehensible error messages.
2. The type checker moves from a deterministic process that either succeeds or fails in an understandable way, to SMT solvers which can just say "yep it's ok" or "nope, couldn't prove it", semi-randomly, and there's little you can do about it.
Still my experience of Sail is that it's very comfortable to go a little bit further into SMT land, and my experience of Dafny is that it's very unpleasant to go full formal-verification at the moment.
I've done a fair bit of hardware formal verification too and that's a different story - very easy and very powerful. I'm hoping one day that software formal verification is like that.