<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Alloy meets TLA+: An exploratory study · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1603.03599/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1603.03599/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Alloy meets TLA+: An exploratory study — mentioned by hwayne</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14731388</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1603.03599:14731388</guid><pubDate>Sun, 09 Jul 2017 20:02:10 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The only in-depth study I know about is &amp;quot;Alloy meets TLA+&amp;quot;.[1] Their conclusion was that Alloy is much more flexible and easier to use _unless_ your system is dynamic, because you have to manually model time in Alloy. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.03599.pdf&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1603.03599/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.SE</category></item><item><title>Alloy meets TLA+: An exploratory study — mentioned by colanderman</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14222765</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1603.03599:14222765</guid><pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:23:28 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;In that they&amp;#x27;re both modeling languages, yes. Alloy is more geared toward algorithms, while TLA+ is more geared toward concurrent systems. This paper has a good comparison: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.03599&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1603.03599/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.SE</category></item></channel></rss>
