aGdaREP VS FStar

I've been dabbling with Idris and agda and coq. I think I'm pretty much settling on agda, because I can appeal to Haskell for help. It's tough finding things that aren't just proofs, actually running a program isn't hard, there just doesn't seem to be many people who do it. I've got some toy projects in mind, and I'm going to lean hard on https://github.com/gallais/aGdaREP (grep in agda). I can't tell you if it's ten times harder - that seems high. It's different, sure. I'm having a tougher time than with, say, prolog. But most of the bumps and bruises are from lack of guidance around, uh, stuff.

So given that context, it doesn't sound to tough to add a cost to the type for each operation, function call, whatever, and have the type checker count up the cost of each call. So you'd have real proof that you're under some threshold. I wouldn't put the agda runtime on a flight control computer. But I think I could write a compiler, now, For like a microcontroller that would count up (or spend time budget, doesn't matter).

A more sophisticated computer would be way way harder, and be resource efficient. But if you modeled it as "everything's a cache miss" and don't mind a bunch of no-ops all the time, that would be a pretty straightforward adaptation of the microcontroller approach.

I don't think something that specific exists. There are a very large number of formal methods tools, each with different specialties / domains.

For verification with proof assistants, [Software Foundations](https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/) and [Concrete Semantics](http://concrete-semantics.org/) are both solid.

For verification via model checking, you can check out [Learn TLA+](https://learntla.com/), and the more theoretical [Specifying Systems](https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/book-02-08-08.pdf).

For more theory, check out [Formal Reasoning About Programs](http://adam.chlipala.net/frap/).

And for general projects look at [F*](https://www.fstar-lang.org/) and [Dafny](https://dafny.org/).

Don't get me wrong, there are times when Microsoft got it right the first time that was technically far superior to their competitors. Windows IOCP was theoretically capable of doing C10K as far back in 1994-95 when there wasn't any hardware support yet and UNIX world was bickering over how to do asynchronous I/O. Years later POSIX came up with select which was a shoddy little shit in comparison. Linux caved in finally only as recently as 2019 and implemented io_uring. Microsoft research has contributed some very interesting things to computer science like Z3 SAT solver and in collaboration with INRIA made languages like F* and Low* for formal specification and verification. But all this dwarfs in comparison to all the harm they did.

Most of the proof assistants out there: Lean, Coq, Dafny, Isabelle, F*, Idris 2, and Agda. And the main concepts are dependent types, Homotopy Type Theory AKA HoTT, and Category Theory. Warning: HoTT and Category Theory are really dense, you're going to really need to research them.

F* is a dependently typed language that can be transpiled to idiomatic C via the KReMLin compiler. It’s very ML-ish to write and you can leave out some proofs. It also has the benefit of being used to write a formally verified TLS implementation that’s in wide use throughout industry.

As I said, dependent types attempt to solve this problem. F* is a language where you can express complex logic as a type. The catch is, these types are checked by an SMT solver. If the solver can satisfy the type checking, then great, and you move on. If it can’t, you have no idea why, and either have to guess or manually write the proof anyway. Contrast this with Standard ML which has a proof of the soundness of its type system.

So kind of like F*? https://www.fstar-lang.org/

F*

Nevermind that academia has come up with far safer ways to do a few things but social norms & inertia prevent their wider adoption (well okay, it also has a barrier to entry in the education required to use it but I don't think someone with the knowledge to meaningfully contribute to an OS kernel can be considered uneducated nor unable to learn).

Maybe that's a little off topic here, but if you like fixing bugs, i suspect you might also enjoy showing that there are no bugs at all. Check out languages like F* https://www.fstar-lang.org/ It's a proof-oriented programming language. You can use it to write code that has no bugs at all. And you once you're done, can convert F* to C or other languages.