[trashchomper]

Having played with Dafny only in a university course, I really enjoyed it as a way of implementing algorithms and being certain they work with much less cruft than unit tests.

I haven't gone looking but verifier tools compatible with languages people already use (typescript/rust/go/whatever is the flavour of the month) feel like the way to go

[codebje]

The languages people already use are inconsistent (in a logic theory sense) and lack formal semantics. Efforts to try and prove anything useful about programs written in those languages don't get far, because the first fact requires you to restrict everything to a subset of the languages, and sometimes that restricts you to an unworkable subset, and the latter fact is a massive hill to climb at whose peak is a note saying, "we have changed the implementation, this hill is no longer relevant."

The only* practical way to approach this is exactly Dafny: start with a (probably) consistent core language with well understood semantics, build on a surface language with syntax features that make it more pleasant to use, proving that the surface language has a translation to the core language that means semantics are clear, and then generate the desired final language after verification has succeeded.

Dafny's about the best of the bunch for this too, for the set of target languages it supports.

(It's fine and normal for pragmatic languages to be inconsistent: all that means here is you can prove false is true, which means you can prove anything and everything trivially, but it also means you can tell the damn compiler to accept your code you're sure is right even though the compiler tells you it isn't. It looks like type casts, "unsafe", and the like.)

* one could alternatively put time and effort into making consistent and semantically clear languages compile efficiently, such that they're worth using directly.

[4ad]

Dafny is great, and has some advantages compared to its competitors, but unequivocally calling it "the best" is quite bullish. For example, languages using dependent types (F*, ATS, Coq/Adga/Lean) are more expressive. And there are very mature systems using HOL.

Truth is that everything involves a tradeoff, and some systems are better than others at different things. Dafny explores a particular design space. Hoare-style invariants are easier to use than dependent types (as long as your SMT solver is happy, anyway) but F* also has that, except that in F* you can also use dependent types when automatic refinement proofs become inadequate. And F* and ATS can target low-level, more so than Dafny.

Probably I would not use ATS for anything, but between F* and Dafny, there isn't such a clear cut (I'd most likely use F*).

And if I don't need (relatively) low-level, I wouldn't use either.

[Xmd5a]

Can't I just work on a subset of the language? I don't care if the linked list implementation I use isn't verified. I want to verify my own code, not because it will run on mars, but as an alternative to writing tests. Is this possible?

[Jtsummers]

I agree, using tools more in line with your language is better but I believe the knowledge from learning Dafny ought to transfer well to other systems. And Dafny seems better as a pedagogical system than what I've seen and used for other languages.

I'm exploring it now as a way to ease colleagues into SPARK. A lot of the material appears to transfer over and the book Program Proofs seems better to me than what I found for SPARK. I probably wouldn't have colleagues work through the book themselves so much as run a series of tutorials. We've done this often in the past when trying to bring everyone up to speed on some new skillset or tooling, if someone already knows it (or has the initiative to learn ahead of time) then they run tutorial sessions every week or so for the team.

[mmoskal]

https://github.com/verus-lang/verus is similar tool for Rust (developed by previous heavy users of Dafny).

[pjmlp]

The only tool I see to ever take off in languages that people already use is design by contract, and is has been a hard ride even making that available in some.

Let alone something more complex in formal verification.