HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
microsoft
Armada
C#2020–2020
microsoft / Armada

Armada

Armada is a tool for writing, and proving correct, high-performance concurrent programs.

2Distinct people
4Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
155GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Armada is a tool for writing, and proving correct, high-performance concurrent programs.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 12:54:37 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week4 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2020-07-30 20:18:51 UTC to 2020-12-31 18:53:29 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

0122020-07-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsJul 272020-08-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-08-10 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-08-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-08-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-31 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-08-31 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-09-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-09-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-09-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-09-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-09-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-09-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-09-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2020-09-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-10-05 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-10-05 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-10-12 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-10-12 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-10-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsOct 122020-10-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-10-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-10-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-02 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-02 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-09 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-09 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-16 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-16 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-23 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-23 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-30 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-30 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-12-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-12-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-04 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsDec 28

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jul 272020-07-27 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-03 00:00:00 UTC202
Aug 32020-08-03 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-10 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 102020-08-10 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 172020-08-17 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 242020-08-24 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-31 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 312020-08-31 00:00:00 UTC2020-09-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 72020-09-07 00:00:00 UTC2020-09-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 142020-09-14 00:00:00 UTC2020-09-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 212020-09-21 00:00:00 UTC2020-09-28 00:00:00 UTC101
Sep 282020-09-28 00:00:00 UTC2020-10-05 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 52020-10-05 00:00:00 UTC2020-10-12 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 122020-10-12 00:00:00 UTC2020-10-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 192020-10-19 00:00:00 UTC2020-10-26 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 262020-10-26 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-02 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 22020-11-02 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-09 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 92020-11-09 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-16 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 162020-11-16 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-23 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 232020-11-23 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-30 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 302020-11-30 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 72020-12-07 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 142020-12-14 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 212020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 282020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-04 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

4 sources
Even there it depends. 'Programming practices' is vague. Even C can be tamed, at great expense, using formal methods techniques. [0][1][2][3] Adoption of such methods can give a solid assurance of the lack of UB, like use of a safe language. Weaker measures, like adopting MISRA C, don't provide such strong assurances (although they can eliminate certain categories of errors), and as you indicate, their real value is a bit more subjective. Mandating a bad programming style could actively make things worse. [0] https://trust-in-soft.com/ [1] https://www.eschertech.com/products/perfect_developer.php [2] https://github.com/microsoft/Armada [3] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/vcc-a-verif...
In Linux Hardening Guide
You're essentially describing a C compiler with advanced optimisations disabled, no? If you want improved safety and fewer footguns, the solution is to use a safer language than C, rather than to try to declaw a fundamentally unsafe language. Even MISRA C fails to guarantee the absence of undefined behaviour. (Other far more involved projects have made this a goal. [0][1]) The obvious candidates are Ada, Rust, and Zig. It doesn't make sense to mandate the absence of serious compiler optimisations, especially for a language like C. [0] https://github.com/zetzit/zz [1] https://github.com/microsoft/Armada
In How expensive is integer-overflow trapping in C++?
Thanks. I read Via a C-like language to mean their language compiles to a non-standard language resembling C, but as you say, they mean they defined a novel language that resembles C, and it compiles down to standard C (specifically, the C subset named ClightTSO suitable for use with the CompCertTSO compiler). Nowhere in Armada's overview [0] is it stated that the ultimate goal is to produce verified C code. I've heard of CompCert. Pity it hasn't got more traction. Also a pity about its licensing situation. The Free and Open Source community is not interested in semi-Free software. The DMD compiler showed us this. [0] https://github.com/microsoft/Armada
In Dafny: Verification-Aware Programming Language

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.