7 ms·

do they have sustained at least one prominent rust first and rust core customer? i doubt, rust has a lot of tooling and catches at compile time what their produ

do they have sustained at least one prominent rust first and rust core customer? i doubt, rust has a lot of tooling and catches at compile time what their product does in runtime. also not sure about antithesis biz practices. you pay them for integration, you spend time educating them and improving their product. and in the end get vendor locking on their compute with arbitrary non transparent pricing. if your are not in rust - sure it can be price efficient.

vlovich123 1y ago
I think you are misunderstanding. Rust does not solve or prevent distributed systems bugs, just memory safety and certain kinds of thread safety problems. For that you’d need to use a formal proof system like Coq. There’s a reason you should still be writing unit tests and hypothesis/property tests in Rust, to catch issues the compiler can’t catch at runtime which is a huge surface area.
- dlahoda 1y ago
  i guess most of issues anthitesis finds are preventable by simple or more evolved rust (patterns). in rust i just have more time for other things you mentioned. also it is clear you are misunderstand rust. rust type and macro system allow to write adhoc partial proves of things around in my code with no extra tooling. that is easy bits what rust adds on top of thread and mem. and definetely i do need to run for help of rocq right away, rust ecosystem has a lot of options. also not only lang itself matters, but also cargo which goes along.
  - Smaug123 1y ago
    You still seem to be completely misunderstanding, as is evident from the fact that your argument "proves" that in Rust you don't even need to write any tests. Again, Antithesis is designed to test distributed systems, deterministically.
    - dlahoda 1y ago
      sorry, where exactly i stated no need to write tests? i argue, overall, that antithesis less likely will be adopted in rust because language itself (in sense extended to typelevel patterns and in macro simulations) and its ecosystem (by ecosystem i mean available libraries and tools and integrations which cover a lot of antithesis agenda). i did not expanded ecosystem argument so, because there was objection to that yet.
      - vlovich123 1y ago
        > i doubt, rust has a lot of tooling and catches at compile time what their product does in runtime. You're making the claim that Antithesis isn't necessary because compile time type-checking solves problems that Antithesis is targeting. That's strictly not true; the kinds of bugs that Antithesis is targeting are not solved via type checking and has never been something Rust has targeted at solving, through ecosystem or otherwise. See my example about trying to implement a distributed consensus algorithm.
        dlahoda 1y ago
        > You're making the claim that Antithesis isn't necessary because compile time type-checking solves problems that Antithesis is targeting sorry, i never claimed what you stated above. you have taken only part of my initial statement and made total nonsense of it by stating it is the only one thing i said. i said: 1. rust needs antithesis less of others 2. rust has equivalent tooling for free 3. biz practices of antithesis will harm its adoption, in rust eco
        Smaug123 1y ago
        Can you point to any of Rust's supposed "equivalent tooling"?
- lmm 1y ago
  > There’s a reason you should still be writing unit tests and hypothesis/property tests in Rust, to catch issues the compiler can’t catch at runtime which is a huge surface area. It would be irresponsible to suggest that Rust eliminates a large enough proportion of common errors that you can YOLO anything that compiles and achieve an acceptable defect rate... but it does happen to be true in my experience.
  - dlahoda 1y ago
    yes. tests test what? logic. logic = types (proven). so stronger type system less test needs to be written. more, if proc macro or build.rs can execute logic, based on parsed """types"""(partial info only), we can extend type systems with custom logic (and panic at compile time and/or startup time if usage violation detected). on top of that, add fail fast (fail at compile time, build time or start up time) and newtype and errors-part-of-api culture; and lack of late binding (dyn is very limited use, no runtime reflection), and we get even less reasons to write tests. some examples of industrial """typing"""(eDSLs, construction time) solutions in rust : - https://github.com/elastio/bon https://github.com/elastio/bon - https://github.com/contextgeneric/cgp https://github.com/contextgeneric/cgp - https://github.com/paritytech/orchestra https://github.com/paritytech/orchestra - https://git.pipapo.org/cehteh/linear_type.git https://git.pipapo.org/cehteh/linear_type.git sure we need write tests, and tests like antithesis helps with. but list of tools helping with tests exactly as antithesis does(and more of others) is huge. that is built on top of absolutely strong supply chain audit, quality and security. there is even """levels""" of determinism tooling to decide how much to pay for cloud compute.
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      Ok. Please write me an implementation of RAFT using no tests and have the Rust type checker prove correctness. I admit complete ignorance into how to get Rust to even go about partially proving that.
      - dlahoda 1y ago
        you cannot prove RAFT correctness using Rust type checker. wdym by "no tests"? seems you have not read my response at all... > sure we need write tests, and tests like antithesis helps with. also, imho both lamports (bft and paxos) and are better of raft https://www.hytradboi.com/2025/2016d6c4-b08d-40b3-af2f-67926ca8521f-enough-with-all-the-raft https://www.hytradboi.com/2025/2016d6c4-b08d-40b3-af2f-67926...

vlovich123 1y ago

I think you are misunderstanding. Rust does not solve or prevent distributed systems bugs, just memory safety and certain kinds of thread safety problems. For that you’d need to use a formal proof system like Coq. There’s a reason you should still be writing unit tests and hypothesis/property tests in Rust, to catch issues the compiler can’t catch at runtime which is a huge surface area.

dlahoda 1y ago
i guess most of issues anthitesis finds are preventable by simple or more evolved rust (patterns). in rust i just have more time for other things you mentioned. also it is clear you are misunderstand rust. rust type and macro system allow to write adhoc partial proves of things around in my code with no extra tooling. that is easy bits what rust adds on top of thread and mem. and definetely i do need to run for help of rocq right away, rust ecosystem has a lot of options. also not only lang itself matters, but also cargo which goes along.
- Smaug123 1y ago
  You still seem to be completely misunderstanding, as is evident from the fact that your argument "proves" that in Rust you don't even need to write any tests. Again, Antithesis is designed to test distributed systems, deterministically.
  - dlahoda 1y ago
    sorry, where exactly i stated no need to write tests? i argue, overall, that antithesis less likely will be adopted in rust because language itself (in sense extended to typelevel patterns and in macro simulations) and its ecosystem (by ecosystem i mean available libraries and tools and integrations which cover a lot of antithesis agenda). i did not expanded ecosystem argument so, because there was objection to that yet.
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      > i doubt, rust has a lot of tooling and catches at compile time what their product does in runtime. You're making the claim that Antithesis isn't necessary because compile time type-checking solves problems that Antithesis is targeting. That's strictly not true; the kinds of bugs that Antithesis is targeting are not solved via type checking and has never been something Rust has targeted at solving, through ecosystem or otherwise. See my example about trying to implement a distributed consensus algorithm.
      - dlahoda 1y ago
        > You're making the claim that Antithesis isn't necessary because compile time type-checking solves problems that Antithesis is targeting sorry, i never claimed what you stated above. you have taken only part of my initial statement and made total nonsense of it by stating it is the only one thing i said. i said: 1. rust needs antithesis less of others 2. rust has equivalent tooling for free 3. biz practices of antithesis will harm its adoption, in rust eco
        Smaug123 1y ago
        Can you point to any of Rust's supposed "equivalent tooling"?
lmm 1y ago
> There’s a reason you should still be writing unit tests and hypothesis/property tests in Rust, to catch issues the compiler can’t catch at runtime which is a huge surface area. It would be irresponsible to suggest that Rust eliminates a large enough proportion of common errors that you can YOLO anything that compiles and achieve an acceptable defect rate... but it does happen to be true in my experience.
- dlahoda 1y ago
  yes. tests test what? logic. logic = types (proven). so stronger type system less test needs to be written. more, if proc macro or build.rs can execute logic, based on parsed """types"""(partial info only), we can extend type systems with custom logic (and panic at compile time and/or startup time if usage violation detected). on top of that, add fail fast (fail at compile time, build time or start up time) and newtype and errors-part-of-api culture; and lack of late binding (dyn is very limited use, no runtime reflection), and we get even less reasons to write tests. some examples of industrial """typing"""(eDSLs, construction time) solutions in rust : - https://github.com/elastio/bon https://github.com/elastio/bon - https://github.com/contextgeneric/cgp https://github.com/contextgeneric/cgp - https://github.com/paritytech/orchestra https://github.com/paritytech/orchestra - https://git.pipapo.org/cehteh/linear_type.git https://git.pipapo.org/cehteh/linear_type.git sure we need write tests, and tests like antithesis helps with. but list of tools helping with tests exactly as antithesis does(and more of others) is huge. that is built on top of absolutely strong supply chain audit, quality and security. there is even """levels""" of determinism tooling to decide how much to pay for cloud compute.
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    Ok. Please write me an implementation of RAFT using no tests and have the Rust type checker prove correctness. I admit complete ignorance into how to get Rust to even go about partially proving that.
    - dlahoda 1y ago
      you cannot prove RAFT correctness using Rust type checker. wdym by "no tests"? seems you have not read my response at all... > sure we need write tests, and tests like antithesis helps with. also, imho both lamports (bft and paxos) and are better of raft https://www.hytradboi.com/2025/2016d6c4-b08d-40b3-af2f-67926ca8521f-enough-with-all-the-raft https://www.hytradboi.com/2025/2016d6c4-b08d-40b3-af2f-67926...