It sounds similar to that antithesis testing service that was on front page recently as well. That also claimed to be able to run programs deterministically as well. I wonder if the two projects are related at all.
Our projects have some features in common, but are pretty much unrelated. Hermit is a deterministic userland, whereas we enforce reproducibility at the hypervisor level and with the right device drivers can support any OS.
The most interesting part of Antithesis (to me) isn’t even the perfect reproducibility, but the autonomous state space exploration that finds the bugs in the first place. AFAIK Hermit doesn’t do that, though you might be able to get somewhere by running your program plus a conventional fuzzer under Hermit together?
Disclosure: I am one of the co-founders of Antithesis.
I’m not convinced you need objects to enforce invariants on your data. Why wouldn't you just use a good type system and type-checker to enforce those invariants? They could check if you're using data in places where they're meant to be, without having to bundle data with procedures.
> Standard protocols now exist for just about everything anyone needs.
I have been OOTL with the Wayland ecosystem for a few years. Does it provide a way for users to create and use input macros (similar to Autohotkey and xdotool) yet? That (in addition to remote desktop and screen casting) was one of the main blockers for me in daily-driving it.
There's ydotool, but as far as I tested with it, the only movements that work are relative movements. You can't tell it to a click a specific x/y because it will fumble badly (Nobara / Fedora 38 )
iirc ydotool just whips a relative device into a corner before trying to position it, which gets it extra wrong if there's mouse acceleration. It's one of the reasons I wrote dotool (https://git.sr.ht/~geb/dotool): echo mouseto 0.5 0.5 | dotool
reply