HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

hwayne

no profile record

comments

hwayne
·4 ay önce·discuss
The key bit is that specifications don't need to be "obviously computable", so they can be a lot simpler than the code that implements them. Consider the property "if some function has a reference to a value, that value will not change unless that function explicitly changes it". It's simple enough to express, but to implement it Rust needs the borrow checker, which is a pretty heavy piece of engineering. And proving the implementation actually guarantees that property isn't easy, either!
hwayne
·4 ay önce·discuss
...Whoops. Yup, SMT solvers can famously return `unknown` on top of `sat` and `unsat`. Just added a post addendum about the mistake.
hwayne
·6 ay önce·discuss
I'll warn you that Picat is very much a "research language" and a lot of the affordances you'd expect with a polished PL just aren't there yet. There's also this really great "field notes" repo from another person who learned it: https://github.com/dsagman/picat
hwayne
·6 ay önce·discuss
Check out datalog! https://learn-some.com/ The tutorial there uses Clojure syntax but Datalog normally uses a Prolog syntax.
hwayne
·7 ay önce·discuss
Also:

- Have a clear notion of what part of the specs represents the system under your control (the "machine"), and what part represents the broader world it interacts with. The world can do more than the machine, and the properties on the world are much more serious.

- Make lots of helpers. You need them more than you think.

- Add way more comments than you normally would. Specs are for analyzing very high-level ideas, and you should be explaining your high-level ideas.

- Make the spec assumptions clear. What has to be true about the operating environment for the spec to be sensible in the first place?

- Use lots of model values, use lots of constants, use lots of ASSUME statements. Constrain your fairness clauses as narrowly as possible.

- Understand the difference between the semantics of TLA+ as an abstract notation and the semantics of TLA+ as something concretely model-checked. For example, TLA+ is untyped, but the model checker is typed. Also, a lot of TLA+ features are not available in different model checkers. OTOH, you can break TLA+ semantics with use of TLCSet and TLCGet.

The last tip applies to whatever modeling language you use: most have the same distinction.
hwayne
·7 ay önce·discuss
I've had to help a client with something not exactly like, but with similar properties as, Google Docs. One of the big properties they had to engineer in was "the doc should eventually look the same for all open browser tabs on the same computer".

The other big question: what happens if user A makes change X and user B makes change Y? There's a lot of outcomes the product can pick between, but whatever they pick it should be consistent. That consistency in conflict resolution is a good property to model.
hwayne
·7 ay önce·discuss
I think the "high school math" slogan is untrue and ultimately scares people away from TLA+, by making it sound like it's their fault for not understanding a tough tool. I don't think you could show an AP calculus student the equation `<>[](ENABLED <<A>>_v) => []<><<A>>_v` and have them immediately go "ah yes, I understand how that's only weak fairness"
hwayne
·7 ay önce·discuss
Those things, unlike floats, have approximable-enough facsimiles that you can verify instead. No tools support even fixed point decimals.

This has burned me before when I e.g needed to take the mean of a sequence.
hwayne
·7 ay önce·discuss
I really do wish that PRISM can one day add some quality of life features like "strings" and "functions"

(Then again, AIUI it's basically a thin wrapper over stochastic matrices, so maybe that's asking too much...)
hwayne
·7 ay önce·discuss
> No problem with floats or strings as far as specification goes. The particular verification tools you choose to run on your TLA+ spec may or may not have limitations in these areas, though.

I think it's disingenuous to say that TLA+ verifiers "may or may not have limitations" wrt floats when none of the available tools support floats. People should know going in that they won't be able to verify specs with floats!
hwayne
·7 ay önce·discuss
Thanks for sharing the general term! I didn't know about it.
hwayne
·9 ay önce·discuss
Now you just gotta go to the first submission and post a link here. Complete the circle!
hwayne
·9 ay önce·discuss
Since writing this I've been informed of some gaps (mostly through email and a lobsters [1] thread). Some of the main ones:

- McCarthy's "Direct Union" is probably conflating "disjoint union" and "direct sum".

- ML probably got the sum/product names from Dana Scott's work. It's unclear if Scott knew of McCarthy's paper or was inspired by it.

- I called ALGOL-68 a "curious dead end" but that's not true: Dennis Ritchie said that he was inspired by 68 when developing C. Also, 68 had exhaustive pattern matching earlier than ML.

- Hoare cites McCarthy in an earlier version of his record paper [2].

Also I kinda mixed up the words for "tagged unions" and "labeled unions". Hope that didn't confuse anybody!

[1] https://lobste.rs/s/ppm44i/very_early_history_algebraic_data...

[2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1061032.1061041
hwayne
·10 ay önce·discuss
I love how you create dataclasses to abstract over constraints!
hwayne
·10 ay önce·discuss
Even worse than that, SMT can encode things like Goldbach's conjecture:

    from z3 import \*

    a, b, c = Ints('a b c')
    x, y = Ints('x y')
    s = Solver()

    s.add(a > 5)
    s.add(a % 2 == 0)
    theorem = Exists([b, c],
                     And(
                         a == b + c,
                         And(
                             Not(Exists([x, y], And(x > 1, y > 1, x \* y == b))),
                             Not(Exists([x, y], And(x > 1, y > 1, x \* y == c))),
                             )
                         )
                     )

    if s.check(Not(theorem)) == sat:
        print(f"Counterexample: {s.model()}")
    else:
        print("Theorem true")
hwayne
·10 ay önce·discuss
It really depends on the kind of solving you want to do. Mathematical optimization, as in finding the cheapest/smallest/whatever solution that fits a problem? OR-Tools. Satisfaction problems, like finding counterexamples in rulesets or reverse engineering code? Z3.
hwayne
·geçen yıl·discuss
I taught a lot of people TLA+ and while there's definitely essential complexity, a nontrivial amount is just syntactic friction. Consider

    \A x \in set: x.id /= 1 /\ ~x.active
vs

    all x in set: x.id != 1 && !x.active
The latter has the same semantics but is much easier to read for the average developer, and more importantly is easier to type without syntax errors.
hwayne
·geçen yıl·discuss
To be totally fair, my article is about the problem of writing specs when your product features could change week to week, whereas I think u/alfalfasprout is talking about regular updates to an existing system slowly bringing it out of sync with the spec. For the latter problem, yeah trace validation and model-based testing is the best approach we have so far.
hwayne
·3 yıl önce·discuss
To nitpick: that's not a comment from a mod. Posts speaking from a position of mod will have [sysop] next to the title. It's part of a "hats system", which more generally allows people to speak as representative of something. IE if /u/johncheng was a Rust core dev, they can post whatever they want as John Cheng, but also write posts as [core dev] to say they're speaking as part of the core team.

It's a neat system but doesn't see much use in practice, aside from the occasional [sysop] warning.