Closed hythloda closed 5 months ago
I posted the document "The Future of TLA+" on the TLA+ website and put a pointer to it on the site's News page. I don't remember if we decided to post a pointer to it on the Google group. I don't know if it would be a good idea to stir up discussion about this when there don't seem to be any need to.
Leslie
Recent blog posts by long-time TLA+ users [1,2,3] have raised the question of whether TLA+ needs a different surface syntax. This suggests that the TLA+ Foundation and the Specification Language Committee should more actively communicate their stance on this issue to balance the public discussion.
[1] https://protocols-made-fun.com/consensus/matterlabs/quint/specification/modelchecking/2024/07/29/chonkybft.html [2] https://buttondown.com/hillelwayne/archive/an-idea-for-teaching-formal-methods-better/ [3] https://jack-vanlightly.com/analyses/2024/7/3/understanding-apache-paimon-consistency-model-part-3
/cc-ing @muenchnerkindl @muratdem @cnewcom for visibility
Adds May 2024 minutes