> No “real programmers” write code in Assembly.<p>This means the opposite of what she means, which is<p>> No, “real programmers” write code in Assembly.<p>because of the missing comma.<p>Insisting on good spelling and grammar is not about being annoying, it's about not accidentally writing the opposite of what you want to convey :(
My only knowledge on modeling languages is: TLA+ exists, I've seen Lamport's introductory videos/course, I've followed along to the course examples.<p>At a glance, I like that this looks more approachable to write, and I like that. Can it still be used to prove properties like liveliness? The fact that Fault seems to use bounded loops seems counter-intuitive to proving those "x eventually happens" conditions. As I understand (from a distance) you can model those in TLA+.<p>PS. The question regards the design of Fault, not the current state of implementation.
I quite like this approach to system spec languages. It feels a bit more modern than the rather unwieldy TLA+. Can someone explain how a spec language can exist without sets as a first class datatype though? (admittedly I only had time for a cursory glance at Fault).<p>Also had a quick look at the codebase and was positively surpised by it being Golang. Oh and just in case the author has a peek at this thread; the only source file I opened had this interesting typo :D "NewProcesser() *Processor"
Nice that this is now real! I followed along with Marianne Writes a Programming Language [0] which I thoroughly enjoyed, and it's cool to see this come to fruition.<p>[0]: <a href="https://bellmar.medium.com/marianne-writes-a-programming-language-8fff3e09f3e" rel="nofollow">https://bellmar.medium.com/marianne-writes-a-programming-lan...</a>
This seems procedural to me and modern architectures lean towards events, boundaries, and language.<p>I get it, but it’s not how I decipher and construct models.
Useless title for HN.[1] A compiler tells me that it’s some language that can be compiled. “Break” tells me that either the compiler is mature and the author is daring someone to fuzz it, or that the compiler is not mature and hence it’s easy to find something that “breaks” while using it (it’s the latter).<p>Would I <i>break</i> someone’s program? I have no reason to care about their program based on this title.<p>[1] Of course there’s the “no ediotoralizing” rule. Even though it’s submitted by the original author.