hypervs

4 ms·

1.
by hypervs 13d ago
Related, yes, although the current prototype is narrower. Chandy-Lamport captures a consistent global state across communicating processes whereas TCC checkpoints program continuations at compiler-defined durable boundaries.
2.
by hypervs 13d ago
Yup, essentially capture state now so execution can continue from it later. The difference is that this checkpoint represents compiler-known program state (live values and control position) rather than an entire process or address space. Th
3.
by hypervs 13d ago
Which rough edges pushed you toward the same mechanism - history growth, replay latency, determinism/versioning, worker ops, or the programming model? Happy to compare notes.
4.
by hypervs 13d ago
Yes, Monty is highly relevant. Its ability to serialize and resume a paused interpreter has a clear relationship to this work. I would say the main difference is scope; Monty is a secure Python interpreter for AI-written code, while TCC is
5.
by hypervs 13d ago
Well checkpointing does not make an incorrect program correct. Durability just guarantees that execution can survive infrastructure failure, not that the resumed program will not encounter the same deterministic bug again. TCC checkpoints a
6.
by hypervs 13d ago
Fair point. The paper explains the execution model and evaluation, but I should have included a concrete source-to-continuation transformation. I kept the implementation discussion too abstract while the design was still evolving. Essential
7.
by hypervs 13d ago
Closer to compiler-generated continuation checkpointing than event sourcing. In the current prototype, the compiler lowers the program into an explicit state machine, and then at each durable boundary - waits, external effects, child execut
8.
Durable execution without history replay(trigora.dev)
40 points by hypervs 17d ago|33 comments
9.
Show HN: Trigora – A hosted runtime for event-driven TypeScript workflows(trigora.dev)
2 points by hypervs 3mo ago|0 comments