> Borrow checking has the "shared-xor-mutable" restriction: if you hold a reference to an object, nobody else can change the object.
The article makes this sound like a problem. It isn't. This restriction frees you from thinking about certain classes of bugs in concurrent code; it's where the "fearless concurrency" comes from. R^w isn't about lifetimes - you could, in spirit (not sure about practice), remove it from Rust without affecting use-after-free at all.
Of course, it means you can't write many completely valid programs, and so we'd hope there's a better solution, but removing it is not one.
If you want to have to think about that (and potentially introduce bugs), that's perfectly fine. The flexibility of not requiring r^w is extremely useful. I'm just clearing up this mis-attribution.
The more you restrict the safe subset of the language, the more correct programs must use the unsafe subset. The logic of "there could be bugs here, therefore it's safer to restrict it" ends in an empty safe subset. The reason for spatial and (to a somewhat lesser degree) temporal memory safety even at the cost of excluding programs that don't violate them is that out-of-bounds access and UAF are extraordinarily overrepresented as causes of severe security vulnerabilities, but that's not the case for concurrency. There are more common causes of vulnerabilities that aren't caught by Rust's type system, that focusing on races seems arbitrary.
Just to clarify, Valen's borrow checker can express shared-xor-mutable, its value proposition is that it can _also_ express mutable aliasing (with `in`).
* When a function has a mutable effect into a group, and the function doesn't declare any other groups to alias it (with `in`), it is effectively a unique reference.
* When a function has references into a group, and it declares no `mut` effects into any of them, they are effectively shared/immutable references.
This helps with Valen's structured concurrency in particular, but also helps guard against the single-threaded race conditions in the same way that Rust's borrow checker does. It also helps with Rust interop!
So, TL;DR: Valen lets you choose between shared-xor-mutable and mutable aliasing.
Also note how mutable aliasing is opt-in (via `in`), so there's a subtle influence pushing people towards shared-xor-mutable, so that they only reach for mutable aliasing when it will benefit them.
> Just to clarify, Valen's borrow checker can express shared-xor-mutable, its value proposition is that it can _also_ express mutable aliasing (with `in`).
Just to clarify, Rust's borrow checker can express mutable aliasing via interior mutability (i.e. UnsafeCell<T> and the various Cell<T> types). A &Cell<T> reference is essentially a mutably aliased reference. The goal is exactly that people "only reach for mutable aliasing when it will benefit them". Of course, any ergonomic improvements around the Cell types are quite welcome, especially if they help C/C++ interop - provided that they're proven to be as sound as the existing borrowck.
Good catch, and well said. Another good example I like citing is GhostCell, which adds mutable aliasing to Rust in a way that's even more flexible than Cell.
I would say Valen's real benefit here is in making a more ergonomic way for functions to work with an arbitrary number of GhostTokens / brands, and to track the relationships between them. (But I admit, I'm no expert with GhostCell, happy to be corrected by someone here)
AIUI, the main limitation with &Cell<T> is (1) no provision for concurrency, obviously - though the various Atomic* types work similarly via interior mutability; and (2) data has to be read, written or modified as a single operation - any provision for enabling subobject access or the like is quite ad hoc, and has to be implemented for the specific type you're working with. GhostCell (and QCell, LCell etc.) generalizes this by tracking the use of shared references at compile time, such that writes will not overlap with each other or with reads, without enforcing a "get/set in a single step" workflow.
And I think OP's point, more succinctly, is that Valen programs will be much more difficult to parallelize than Rust programs.
It's shockingly easy to make a single-threaded Rust program use all the cores on a machine by slapping in Rayon wherever you have a Vec. Because Rust forces you to do the hard work of proving shared^mutable before getting a single-threaded program running.
The ecosystem-wide consequence of this is that pretty much every compute-intensive program written in Rust (that doesn't rely on non-Rust libraries for compute-intensive stuff) is automatically multicore. This is one of the reasons why Rust programmers seek out Rust libraries first. Because they know they won't get the unpleasant surprise of putting in a lot of work to adopt a library and then get burned when they find out it will only use a single core.
Apologies for not understanding. And I admit, it's hard to communicate in the abstract, so I might still not understand the question.
If it helps: AFAICT, Valen's borrow checker preserves the same ecosystem-wide concurrency benefits that Rust has. For precedent, check out GhostCell [0] which is not only _compatible_ with Rust's concurrency but gives it some interesting new abilities. Valen's approach could be thought of as a more ergonomic form of GhostCell that better tracks the relationships between multiple groups (brands).
I could give a better answer if we had an example to toss around where we think Valen might force things to be single-threaded.
Rust needs shared xor mutable in order to prevent data races on non-atomically accessed data. You said that Valen can _express_ shared xor mutable, but perhaps you haven't clarified whether this also interacts with equivalents to Rust's Send and Sync to enable the same fearless concurrency.
I mean the article doesn't talk about this aspect of the language, but Send and Sync are orthogonal to borrow checking. I don't see why you couldn't use Rust's exact design in Valen.
That saying does more harm than good, and it counts against the Rust community that it keeps repeating it. Deadlocks are not something that Rust prevents. On the contrary, many beginners to Rust often run into deadlocks, some even spurred on by trying to satisfy the borrow checker. An infamous example is https://fasterthanli.me/articles/a-rust-match-made-in-hell . Instead of making blatantly false claims and causing newcomers to Rust frustration, pain and bugs, the Rust community should warn about concurrency and direct beginners to learn about concurrency, both generally as well as specifically in Rust.
* Deadlocks, memory leaks, infinite loops, etc. are all the sort of risks that Rust doesn't try to protect from. In my opinion it's okay to talk about "fearless concurrency" despite deadlocks in the same way it's okay to call Rust memory-safe despite memory leaks.
* Rust's type system also allows you to make safe interfaces like Rayon that do genuinely allow for "fearless" concurrency in a way that I don't really see in other general-purpose languages.
> But group borrowing actually resolves the conflict, by relaxing "shared-xor-mutable" to "no use-after-free".
That's the one line that defines what's going on here.
If all you want is "no use after free", either reference counts or garbage collection will do the job. That's how most GC-oriented languages work.
Rust enforces stricter rules - single ownership, one writer or N readers. The question is whether that's worth the trouble. In threaded programs, it definitely is, because it prevents race conditions. Whether it's a win for single-thread programs is a good question.
Vale seems to be a way to move much of the overhead of a reference-counted system at compile time. Nothing wrong with that. The main motivation seems to be better interoperability with less restrictive languages. Am I reading that correctly?
I'd describe this as approximately weakening aliasing xor mutability to interior-aliasing xor mutability. The motivation seeming to be to have a more expressive system that rejects fewer correct programs. With a secondary goal of interacting with more (not less) restrictive languages (namely rust).
It sounds more like "path" borrowing than "group" borrowing to me, but the idea is great! Quite eye opening!
One minor thing is that I'm not sure why they had to have "in" keyword for sub-borrows. Wouldn't it be more consistent to see "entity &world.entities[?]" instead of "entity in world.entities[]"? We'd consistently get the borrow "&" symbol and open the door for some contracts on what index (range) is affected.
(hi kvark, long time!) it’s a clever algorithm, if you’re curious about other factorizations of referentiality frames I’ve been tinkering with analyzer across interpretation boundary like the gpu command queue :) I need to get some writing together. the techniques like from this post are a little “cute” compared to what real systems need.
FWIW `foo in bar` implies iteration to me, not a path. In the .NET world, for example, `bar` would be a collection that we’re iterating through, assigning each element to `foo` in turn.
Assuming “groups” are mainly about grouped invalidation, I agree, Path Borrowing
is the better name, since it describes the core idea rather than the implementation mechanism.
I wonder if nowadays we should be focusing less on scalar data structures and more on languages that facilitate vectorized/SIMD instructions. Languages like Vx lang, Mojo, and Futhark that work both in the CPU or the GPU, although each one works in a different level of abstraction and control.
GPU compilation is definitely something I intend Valen to support. I wrote about it back in 2022, [0] and I learned a lot of lessons on how to do it (and how not to do it!) from working on the Mojo compiler.
The biggest decision for Valen is what to lower to:
* Rust MIR, since rustc has CUDA now, [1] (perhaps other cards soon?)
* SPIR-V, like Zig does for its GPU compilation [2]
* MLIR
Rust MIR is looking pretty nice. Valen already has Rust interop by doing some rustc sorcery, [3] and it would be somewhat straightforward to switch from emitting LLVM to emitting Rust MIR. I just need to figure out if Rust MIR can support the optimizations I have planned for Valen.
In a perfect world, Rust would be able to lower its MIR to MLIR, since MLIR has so many backends. I recall there were some efforts to do that, unsure where that ended up.
I don’t want to hijack Evan’s post by posting a link, but if you’re interested I’ve implemented many of the ideas in that presentation in the language I’m working on. You can check out the latest link in my post history for a rundown of how it works and a demo.
I have a question about immutability. In Rust, if I have a shared reference to T (an &T a variable or a parameter), then I have a restriction that I can't modify T or anything in it (which Valen thinks is annoyingly restrictive, and I tend to agree), but I also have a promise that no one else will modify it. The latter is quite nice: it makes the optimizer happier (improves aliasing analysis), makes threading happier (nothing descended from the reference can have data races while the reference is alive), and makes me happier (I don't need to think about descendent values being mutated).
Valen can call into Rust, and I think I can see how, at the site of any particular call, Valen can tell that no one is mutating the referent or its descendents: in a single-threaded world, the only thing executing is the current line of code or a maybe a few consecutive lines of code, and the compiler can see the function's signature and any mutable references therein, and if there is no permission to modify a descendent, then it doesn't get modified.
But in a multithreaded world, especially if calling into Rust in a thread, doesn't there need to be a way to guarantee the immutability of an object across an entire region of code? How does that work in Valen?
And for making immutability more comprehensible to people and to local analysis in general, would a special type of reference meaning "yes, this one really is fully frozen and there are no mutable paths into it for the entire lifetime of this reference" be a nice feature?
(Aside: I've occasionally contemplated whether Rust would benefit from another flavor of reference: no-access. A no-access reference would guarantee the referent's existence but could coexist with shared and with mutable references. Safe code would be unable to read or write through such a reference. Other than making some cell-like types mildly less mind-bending, I'm not convinced I have an actual justification for this thing. This would give Rust three flavors of references.
But I can imagine a Valen-like language having three flavors of references: frozen references (cannot use them to mutate and there's a promise that no one else can either), exclusive references (fully mutable, etc, just like Rust's &mut) and flexible references (the kind of reference in the blog post).)
Awesome question, you're getting at the good stuff.
Short answer: Valen would have something similar to Fn and FnMut (but phrased in terms of effects rather than Fn vs FnMut). In other words, we would be able to express "a closure that does not modify anything it captures", or rather, "a closure that has no mut effects".
That closure, because it doesn't modify anything it captures, would be safe to share among multiple threads in a structured-concurrency-like / std::thread::scope-ish way.
The key here is that one _can_ express immutable references in Valen; an immutable reference is a reference that the containing function doesn't express a `mut` effect for. And once we have immutable references, we get all of the nice concurrency benefits that Rust trailblazed.
I'd also like to make a way to do the above without a function call, perhaps using something like the `parallel` keyword I described in [0].
A no-access reference is an interesting idea. That could be a more powerful way to express may_dangle. In Valen, I hope to have an "opaque" group to express something like that.
I don't know whether it's a good idea, but in Valen I'm trying to decouple access capabilities away from the reference types as much as possible. We'll see if that bet pays off.
> The key here is that one _can_ express immutable references in Valen; an immutable reference is a reference that the containing function doesn't express a `mut` effect for. And once we have immutable references, we get all of the nice concurrency benefits that Rust trailblazed.
I'm contemplating this. Is it enough?
Suppose I have an object (I'm not even trying to get the syntax right, especially since Valen's syntax appears a bit different from Rust's):
let obj: T = ...;
And I also create a structured concurrency thingy in the same scope:
let workgroup: StructuredConcurrencyThingy = ...;
Now I pass references to both of these down the callchain, through a few functions, maybe via some structs with lifetime parameters, and in the inner function I do this:
workgroup.submit(move || print_in_rust(obj));
where print_in_rust is a Rust function taking &T. (I haven't the faintest clue how to spell that in Valen.) So I'm making a closure, and the closure captures obj, and the closure needs obj to exist and be immutable for the lifetime of the closure, which exceeds the creating function's lifetime. It's bounded by the workgroup's lifetime, and Rust is fine with this.
But, if I'm understanding you right, the immutability of the referent of obj depends on the signatures of everything in the callchain that might execute during the lifetime of the closure. How does that work?
edit: On further contemplation, I don't think that actual concurrency is needed to illustrate it. I think the same issue exists if I have a T<'a> that has a method that takes an &'a reference (probably like store_a_reference(&mut self, ref: &'a u32)) and dereferences ref both immediately and later and asserts that it sees the same value both times.
Sorry, I think my attempts to simplify/explain ended up confusing things. I'll try to be a little more precise.
In Rust, a reference is forever shared/immutable or forever unique/mutable.
In Valen, a reference is... "it depends". Specifically, it depends on the context.
It's similar to a &GhostCell<T>, where its mutability isn't determined yet because the GhostToken isn't present yet.
So, what determines the mutability at any given point in time? The function's `mut` effects (or lack of them) for the group/path that the reference is pointing to.
So we can imagine a `execute_on_4_threads` function like this:
(`Func<void, (), C>` is a trait for a function that returns void, takes no extra parameters, and names its captures as group C).
The most relevant fact here is that this function doesn't declare any `mut` effects at all (not on C, not on W's group, nothing), so nothing is being mutated. (And because of that, this function's callees also can't have any `mut` effects; they also can't mutate the data)
Now let's say we changed `workgroup`'s type to `&W in w`, and added a `mut(w)` to the function, to describe that we might modify the workgroup.
At that point, we would still know that we can invoke the closure from 4 threads, because we declared no relationship between `w` and `C`, so the compiler assumes (and enforces) that they're disjoint, have no overlap, nothing in one aliases anything in the other.
Hopefully that helps. Maybe I should write a blog post on this, my posts are usually clearer than my HN comments.
(Also, I'm not sure I understand your edit, if you could clarify that would be much appreciated)
I think I'm still failing to adequately explain what I mean. Let me try being absurdly explicit. The following is ordinary Rust code, and the reader is supposed to pretend that the two functions prefixed with valen_ are in Valen instead.
#[derive(Default)]
struct Receiver<'a> {
ref_and_val: Option<(&'a u32, u32)>
}
impl<'a> Receiver<'a> {
fn set(&mut self, reference: &'a u32) -> ()
{
self.ref_and_val = Some((reference, *reference))
}
fn check(&self) -> ()
{
if let Some((reference, val)) = self.ref_and_val {
if *reference != val {
panic!("The impossible happened!")
}
}
}
}
fn valen_inner_fun<'a>(r: &mut Receiver<'a>, val: &'a u32)
{
r.set(val)
}
fn valen_intermediate_fun<'a>(r: &mut Receiver<'a>, val: &'a mut u32)
{
// In a real mixed-language example, this would be in Valen, not Rust,
// and it would declare a mutable effect on val.
valen_inner_fun(r, val);
// And it would do this, which Rust disallows.
*val = 17
}
fn main() {
let mut r: Receiver = Receiver::default();
let mut fortytwo = 42;
valen_intermediate_fun(&mut r, &mut fortytwo);
r.check()
}
This compiles except for the *val = 17 line. (rustc's error message is a bit confused, and maybe I'll file a bug about that. If one follow's rustc's advice, the weird error turns into a less weird error.)
My point is that Receiver::set() requires a promise that its parameter's referent is immutable for the entire lifetime 'a, which exceeds the lexical duration of set() itself. And valen_outer_fun in Rust knows this to be true as a result of Rust's shared-xor-mutable system, and Rust's borrow checker verifies this:
a) the code would compile if I removed the offending *val = 17
b) the code, correctly, does not compile as written
c) If I force the issue by replacing *val = 17 with:
unsafe { *(val as *const u32 as *mut u32) = 17 }
then it panics and we can all imagine we're using C++ instead of Rust :)
But valen_inner_fun does not mutate val, and if I understand right then this means that Valen would accept its Valen equivalent without mut(val), and this seems unsound to me.
When I first thought of this, I imagined set() instead being a work-dispatching function that would run its passed-in closure and hit UB due to a data race with the *val = 17 line, and my edit was my realizing that there's a simpler non-concurrent example.
I've occasionally contemplated whether Rust would benefit from another flavor of reference: no-access.
Most of the uses for this I can think of are best solved by opaque pointers for FFI. Having a rust-native reference just seems incongruous. Like, does it have size and alignment info? How would it interact with NLL? The only way I can imagine it working is if it extended referent lifetime throughout the lexical lifetime of the reference, but that defeats the purpose of NLL.
Rust solves a similar problem in closures with unique immutable references, but they're not quite the same.
In my mind, a no-access reference would have exactly the same lifetime rules (except for the exclusivity part) as any other reference. And they'd have the same size and lifetime rules.
Unsafe Rust could promote a no-access reference to a shared or a mutable reference, and the unsafe code would be responsible for not violating exclusivity rules but would have a guarantee that the referent actually exists. Using unsafe code to create a no-access reference to a nonexistent object or to a misaligned object would be UB.
Safe code could convert the other way:
let a: &mut u32 = ...;
let b: &noaccess u32 = a;
let c: &u32 = ...;
let d: &noaccess u32 = c;
Under NLL, reference lifetime is defined by the places where the reference is used, and noaccess types can't be used. So then reference lifetime has to devolve to the spans where the reference is live, which is only defined lexically.
So for example:
let mut data = vec!['a', 'b', 'c'];
let b: &noaccess [char] = &data[..];
data.push('d'); // Does this error?
Aha, gotcha. I assume that any such reference would either do nothing or would be used by unsafe code (presumably by conversion through a raw pointer but maybe direct unsafe conversion to regular references could also be allowed).
Your example is sneaky, though. Lifetime issues aside (suppose the next line of code uses b), that’s a noaccess reference to memory (an object? a place? I’m not sure what the current term is) that is only guaranteed to exist so long as data is not mutated. So the code with a subsequent use of data would error.
It may be interesting to focus on how exactly these planned "no-access" references would differ from raw pointers? Access through raw pointers is an unsafe operation already.
nit: you need a better way of laying out asides/footnotes. when they get bunched up like at the start of this article you start having to scroll full screens back and forth. at least make the numbers on the asides link back to their position in the main text
Yes, absolutely, lol. This article is really pushing my notes system past its limits. And it loops between six note colors, which normally isn't a problem, but is here. During the holidays, I want to see if I can implement Tufte notes like in https://edwardtufte.github.io/tufte-css/
Having mutability not be a property of the data, but of the function arguments reminds me a lot of modes from Jane Street’s OxCaml ^1 which is really interesting to me, as OxCaml’s focus is not really about memory management (they still use garbage collection for everything not on the stack). Feels like we might be converging towards a new standard! I can see the morning sun on the horizon :)
Interesting! I can’t say I’m that familiar with Rust beyond surface level usage. What feels different is that you can declare a reference as mutable or not in Rust whereas in Valen or OxCaml it’s strictly declared in a function’s arguments.
Off-topic (as I don't have the knowledge to intelligently comment on the concept): all I can think when I hear the name "Valen" is Babylon 5. I wonder if it's a coincidence or a deliberate reference?
Perhaps Valen will unite borrowing, reference counting, and generational references... just like how a certain Babylon 5 figure united the fractured Minbari Castes and lead them to victory.
Mojo's origin can represent a lot of these semantics. I think a lot was learned from Nick's proposal, even if it wasn't directly implemented. Here is an example of how you could represent the first snippet, where two references can update the same list: https://godbolt.org/z/78bhzWjYM
Unfortunately, Mojo kind of limits itself by forcing all parameters to be unique references or shared references. So the first example works in Mojo, but not the `step` example nor the `attack` example from the original group borrowing explanation. [0]
I hope they one day upgrade to full group borrowing, it would be a nice fit for them.
This looks cool for code-driven systems where code has static knowledge of every path in the system. It might be strictly better for things like rendering where types of rendering are code-driven. Like your world can have skybox and such. The examples assuming gamedev 'world' and 'entity' are completely misleading though. Because I think everyone has moved on to data-driven worlds. Think of entity 'advance' from the code examples as an 'entity blueprint execute'.
You know, it's not crazy. Niko wrote about lifetimes based on places back in 2024, [0] though it was in the context of shared-xor-mutable, which is consistent with Rust's spirit.
And Rust already supports forms of mutable aliasing already, such as with Cell, and GhostCell which is halfway towards Valen's approach. I would love to see someone augment GhostCell to have the sort of "invalidation" logic that group borrowing does. In fact, Plecra is working on something like that with their (WIP) "Exclusion Typing". [1]
On top of that, Polonius already thinks in terms of "paths", just like Valen does. So it's not so much a question of compiler design, but of language design, and how Rust would expose it to the user.
It would have to take &Cell<T> references or the like in order to preserve the existing uniqueness properties for &mut T references. Not so different ultimately from what GhostCell, QCell, LCell etc. do already, except possibly simpler in some ways.
Hi! Kind of both. Even though Valen reuses 90% of the Vale compiler, its approach (Rust interop, borrow checking with mutable aliasing, etc.) is so different that it really needed a new name.
Also, I really like where Vale ended up, Vale's generational references + region borrowing was a truly weird and unusual memory safety blend. I didn't want that combination to be lost to time, so I wanted "Vale" to keep referring to that.
A bit sad to see Vale archived. Have you written a final post on it (lessons learned, the good and the bad, fundamental strengths and weaknesses, future research needed, all that)?
Thank you. Your writings on memory safety and other similar topics is appreciated, and the work you are doing seems to point in a very interesting direction that I am sure will bring a new breakthrough similar to what Rust (or, more accurately, Cyclone) brought. Very interested in what will percolate in Mojo and Ante too.
Next article =) How the borrow checker handles ifs and loops is a pretty fun topic. If-statements work like you'd expect (invalidations from both branches are merged). Loops is where it gets weird: we have to scout all the invalidations that happen inside the loop and then "replay" them _before_ the body of the loop. I can explain it more if you'd like.
I was wondering about the case where a reference points to a different path depending on control flow. I guess you can just design your language to make this impossible but this is still possible to do with pointers in C/C++.
Theoretically, we can have a reference that points to two paths, a "path union" so to speak. If the user explicitly typed out the path union, it would be something like:
let my_ref &Entity in (live_list[], dead_list[]) = if ...
though it would be nicer in practice, because the compiler could infer that.
Haven't implemented it yet of course, but the data structures in the borrow checker are designed with this in mind.
Yep, that comes for free from the model. Though, if you're asking if we can have two unique references (like `&mut`) to two different entries, not yet. Nick's original proposal had some thoughts on how we can do that, and Zeta (another language implementing group borrowing) has some neat dependent-type-ish mechanisms for that. I'm still considering what Valen will want to do there.
Checking the following code, could you confirm that is does not work concurrently ?
The "world" var is read-only, does it mean that all other entities are also readonly (cannot be modified by another thread, for instance) ?
struct World {
entities Vec<Entity>;
}
func step(world &World, entity in world.entities[] mut) {
entity.advance();
let collision = world.get_collision_for_entity(entity);
entity.resolve(collision);
}
Yep, that works today. The neat thing here is that `world` is immutable _except_ for its `.entities[]` elements.
That wouldn't be shareable with another thread, because part of it is `mut`. _Theoretically_ we could make this shareable with other threads if we had another kind of effect, let me know if you're curious about that.
The `entity in world.entities[] mut` gives `step` blanket permission to mutate any element inside world.entities. We wouldn't be able to say "all other entities are readonly".
Though, it's worth mentioning that `advance` and `resolve` both receive the entity as a unique reference (since it's the only reference into a group which has a mut effect).
Maybe! I think about D a lot when designing Valen, since they attempted to blend borrowing with garbage collection. Swift is facing some of the same challenges, and I expect Java could soon too now that Valhalla has landed.
If Valen solves those challenges as well as I think it can, it could be a good direction for them to explore.
A function signature describes the paths it modifies.
The problem with this is that it imposes a cost on abstraction. Zero-cost abstraction is one of the most fundamental design principles behind both C++ and Rust.
A field-path into a struct/enum fundamentally depends on its concrete implementation. If you hide the fields of a struct and use getters/setters, you break the ability to talk about the "paths modified" by a function which uses getters/setters.
Aside: it really annoyed me that I had to read halfway through this article to find the first attempt at defining "group borrowing". The whole first half of the article is basically fluff.
> Borrow checking has the "shared-xor-mutable" restriction: if you hold a reference to an object, nobody else can change the object.
The article makes this sound like a problem. It isn't. This restriction frees you from thinking about certain classes of bugs in concurrent code; it's where the "fearless concurrency" comes from. R^w isn't about lifetimes - you could, in spirit (not sure about practice), remove it from Rust without affecting use-after-free at all.
Of course, it means you can't write many completely valid programs, and so we'd hope there's a better solution, but removing it is not one.
If you want to have to think about that (and potentially introduce bugs), that's perfectly fine. The flexibility of not requiring r^w is extremely useful. I'm just clearing up this mis-attribution.
The more you restrict the safe subset of the language, the more correct programs must use the unsafe subset. The logic of "there could be bugs here, therefore it's safer to restrict it" ends in an empty safe subset. The reason for spatial and (to a somewhat lesser degree) temporal memory safety even at the cost of excluding programs that don't violate them is that out-of-bounds access and UAF are extraordinarily overrepresented as causes of severe security vulnerabilities, but that's not the case for concurrency. There are more common causes of vulnerabilities that aren't caught by Rust's type system, that focusing on races seems arbitrary.
Just to clarify, Valen's borrow checker can express shared-xor-mutable, its value proposition is that it can _also_ express mutable aliasing (with `in`).
* When a function has a mutable effect into a group, and the function doesn't declare any other groups to alias it (with `in`), it is effectively a unique reference.
* When a function has references into a group, and it declares no `mut` effects into any of them, they are effectively shared/immutable references.
This helps with Valen's structured concurrency in particular, but also helps guard against the single-threaded race conditions in the same way that Rust's borrow checker does. It also helps with Rust interop!
So, TL;DR: Valen lets you choose between shared-xor-mutable and mutable aliasing.
Also note how mutable aliasing is opt-in (via `in`), so there's a subtle influence pushing people towards shared-xor-mutable, so that they only reach for mutable aliasing when it will benefit them.
> Just to clarify, Valen's borrow checker can express shared-xor-mutable, its value proposition is that it can _also_ express mutable aliasing (with `in`).
Just to clarify, Rust's borrow checker can express mutable aliasing via interior mutability (i.e. UnsafeCell<T> and the various Cell<T> types). A &Cell<T> reference is essentially a mutably aliased reference. The goal is exactly that people "only reach for mutable aliasing when it will benefit them". Of course, any ergonomic improvements around the Cell types are quite welcome, especially if they help C/C++ interop - provided that they're proven to be as sound as the existing borrowck.
Good catch, and well said. Another good example I like citing is GhostCell, which adds mutable aliasing to Rust in a way that's even more flexible than Cell.
I would say Valen's real benefit here is in making a more ergonomic way for functions to work with an arbitrary number of GhostTokens / brands, and to track the relationships between them. (But I admit, I'm no expert with GhostCell, happy to be corrected by someone here)
AIUI, the main limitation with &Cell<T> is (1) no provision for concurrency, obviously - though the various Atomic* types work similarly via interior mutability; and (2) data has to be read, written or modified as a single operation - any provision for enabling subobject access or the like is quite ad hoc, and has to be implemented for the specific type you're working with. GhostCell (and QCell, LCell etc.) generalizes this by tracking the use of shared references at compile time, such that writes will not overlap with each other or with reads, without enforcing a "get/set in a single step" workflow.
> any provision for enabling subobject access or the like is quite ad hoc, and has to be implemented for the specific type you're working with
There is ongoing work on a language feature ("field projection") that could alleviate this.
I think OP understands that.
And I think OP's point, more succinctly, is that Valen programs will be much more difficult to parallelize than Rust programs.
It's shockingly easy to make a single-threaded Rust program use all the cores on a machine by slapping in Rayon wherever you have a Vec. Because Rust forces you to do the hard work of proving shared^mutable before getting a single-threaded program running.
The ecosystem-wide consequence of this is that pretty much every compute-intensive program written in Rust (that doesn't rely on non-Rust libraries for compute-intensive stuff) is automatically multicore. This is one of the reasons why Rust programmers seek out Rust libraries first. Because they know they won't get the unpleasant surprise of putting in a lot of work to adopt a library and then get burned when they find out it will only use a single core.
Apologies for not understanding. And I admit, it's hard to communicate in the abstract, so I might still not understand the question.
If it helps: AFAICT, Valen's borrow checker preserves the same ecosystem-wide concurrency benefits that Rust has. For precedent, check out GhostCell [0] which is not only _compatible_ with Rust's concurrency but gives it some interesting new abilities. Valen's approach could be thought of as a more ergonomic form of GhostCell that better tracks the relationships between multiple groups (brands).
I could give a better answer if we had an example to toss around where we think Valen might force things to be single-threaded.
Rust needs shared xor mutable in order to prevent data races on non-atomically accessed data. You said that Valen can _express_ shared xor mutable, but perhaps you haven't clarified whether this also interacts with equivalents to Rust's Send and Sync to enable the same fearless concurrency.
I mean the article doesn't talk about this aspect of the language, but Send and Sync are orthogonal to borrow checking. I don't see why you couldn't use Rust's exact design in Valen.
How widespread are locks in typical Rust code?
> "fearless concurrency"
That saying does more harm than good, and it counts against the Rust community that it keeps repeating it. Deadlocks are not something that Rust prevents. On the contrary, many beginners to Rust often run into deadlocks, some even spurred on by trying to satisfy the borrow checker. An infamous example is https://fasterthanli.me/articles/a-rust-match-made-in-hell . Instead of making blatantly false claims and causing newcomers to Rust frustration, pain and bugs, the Rust community should warn about concurrency and direct beginners to learn about concurrency, both generally as well as specifically in Rust.
* Deadlocks, memory leaks, infinite loops, etc. are all the sort of risks that Rust doesn't try to protect from. In my opinion it's okay to talk about "fearless concurrency" despite deadlocks in the same way it's okay to call Rust memory-safe despite memory leaks.
* Rust's type system also allows you to make safe interfaces like Rayon that do genuinely allow for "fearless" concurrency in a way that I don't really see in other general-purpose languages.
[flagged]
I'm not part of "the Rust community". I'm not sure why you have to be so inflammatory.
Those are bullet points.
> But group borrowing actually resolves the conflict, by relaxing "shared-xor-mutable" to "no use-after-free".
That's the one line that defines what's going on here.
If all you want is "no use after free", either reference counts or garbage collection will do the job. That's how most GC-oriented languages work.
Rust enforces stricter rules - single ownership, one writer or N readers. The question is whether that's worth the trouble. In threaded programs, it definitely is, because it prevents race conditions. Whether it's a win for single-thread programs is a good question.
Vale seems to be a way to move much of the overhead of a reference-counted system at compile time. Nothing wrong with that. The main motivation seems to be better interoperability with less restrictive languages. Am I reading that correctly?
I don't think you're reading it correctly.
I'd describe this as approximately weakening aliasing xor mutability to interior-aliasing xor mutability. The motivation seeming to be to have a more expressive system that rejects fewer correct programs. With a secondary goal of interacting with more (not less) restrictive languages (namely rust).
It sounds more like "path" borrowing than "group" borrowing to me, but the idea is great! Quite eye opening!
One minor thing is that I'm not sure why they had to have "in" keyword for sub-borrows. Wouldn't it be more consistent to see "entity &world.entities[?]" instead of "entity in world.entities[]"? We'd consistently get the borrow "&" symbol and open the door for some contracts on what index (range) is affected.
(hi kvark, long time!) it’s a clever algorithm, if you’re curious about other factorizations of referentiality frames I’ve been tinkering with analyzer across interpretation boundary like the gpu command queue :) I need to get some writing together. the techniques like from this post are a little “cute” compared to what real systems need.
Also, as I was writing this, a couple things occurred to me:
* We _could_ use the function parameter syntax `entities: &world.entities[]` instead of `entities in world.entities[]`.
* "Groups" aren't really central to understanding the idea, so Path Borrowing might be a better name than Group Borrowing.
Opinions welcome =)
A bit more fuel for the bikesheding aspect of this:
Subtree borrowing.
(Single ownership stemming from main is a tree of owners; each path specifies some subtree)
(Btw. I enjoyed reading it)
FWIW `foo in bar` implies iteration to me, not a path. In the .NET world, for example, `bar` would be a collection that we’re iterating through, assigning each element to `foo` in turn.
Assuming “groups” are mainly about grouped invalidation, I agree, Path Borrowing is the better name, since it describes the core idea rather than the implementation mechanism.
Love both.
I wonder if nowadays we should be focusing less on scalar data structures and more on languages that facilitate vectorized/SIMD instructions. Languages like Vx lang, Mojo, and Futhark that work both in the CPU or the GPU, although each one works in a different level of abstraction and control.
GPU compilation is definitely something I intend Valen to support. I wrote about it back in 2022, [0] and I learned a lot of lessons on how to do it (and how not to do it!) from working on the Mojo compiler.
The biggest decision for Valen is what to lower to:
* Rust MIR, since rustc has CUDA now, [1] (perhaps other cards soon?)
* SPIR-V, like Zig does for its GPU compilation [2]
* MLIR
Rust MIR is looking pretty nice. Valen already has Rust interop by doing some rustc sorcery, [3] and it would be somewhat straightforward to switch from emitting LLVM to emitting Rust MIR. I just need to figure out if Rust MIR can support the optimizations I have planned for Valen.
In a perfect world, Rust would be able to lower its MIR to MLIR, since MLIR has so many backends. I recall there were some efforts to do that, unsure where that ended up.
[0] https://verdagon.dev/blog/next-gen-languages-gpu
[1] https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/introducing-cuda-rust-two-...
[2] https://ziglang.org/devlog/2026/#2026-06-26
[3] https://verdagon.dev/blog/golden-spike-reviving-vale-valen
You are in good company.
https://venge.net/graydon/talks/VectorizedInterpretersTalk-2...
I don’t want to hijack Evan’s post by posting a link, but if you’re interested I’ve implemented many of the ideas in that presentation in the language I’m working on. You can check out the latest link in my post history for a rundown of how it works and a demo.
is it the mech-lang?
Feel free to talk about it here, would love to hear about it!
Neat!
I have a question about immutability. In Rust, if I have a shared reference to T (an &T a variable or a parameter), then I have a restriction that I can't modify T or anything in it (which Valen thinks is annoyingly restrictive, and I tend to agree), but I also have a promise that no one else will modify it. The latter is quite nice: it makes the optimizer happier (improves aliasing analysis), makes threading happier (nothing descended from the reference can have data races while the reference is alive), and makes me happier (I don't need to think about descendent values being mutated).
Valen can call into Rust, and I think I can see how, at the site of any particular call, Valen can tell that no one is mutating the referent or its descendents: in a single-threaded world, the only thing executing is the current line of code or a maybe a few consecutive lines of code, and the compiler can see the function's signature and any mutable references therein, and if there is no permission to modify a descendent, then it doesn't get modified.
But in a multithreaded world, especially if calling into Rust in a thread, doesn't there need to be a way to guarantee the immutability of an object across an entire region of code? How does that work in Valen?
And for making immutability more comprehensible to people and to local analysis in general, would a special type of reference meaning "yes, this one really is fully frozen and there are no mutable paths into it for the entire lifetime of this reference" be a nice feature?
(Aside: I've occasionally contemplated whether Rust would benefit from another flavor of reference: no-access. A no-access reference would guarantee the referent's existence but could coexist with shared and with mutable references. Safe code would be unable to read or write through such a reference. Other than making some cell-like types mildly less mind-bending, I'm not convinced I have an actual justification for this thing. This would give Rust three flavors of references.
But I can imagine a Valen-like language having three flavors of references: frozen references (cannot use them to mutate and there's a promise that no one else can either), exclusive references (fully mutable, etc, just like Rust's &mut) and flexible references (the kind of reference in the blog post).)
Awesome question, you're getting at the good stuff.
Short answer: Valen would have something similar to Fn and FnMut (but phrased in terms of effects rather than Fn vs FnMut). In other words, we would be able to express "a closure that does not modify anything it captures", or rather, "a closure that has no mut effects".
That closure, because it doesn't modify anything it captures, would be safe to share among multiple threads in a structured-concurrency-like / std::thread::scope-ish way.
The key here is that one _can_ express immutable references in Valen; an immutable reference is a reference that the containing function doesn't express a `mut` effect for. And once we have immutable references, we get all of the nice concurrency benefits that Rust trailblazed.
I'd also like to make a way to do the above without a function call, perhaps using something like the `parallel` keyword I described in [0].
A no-access reference is an interesting idea. That could be a more powerful way to express may_dangle. In Valen, I hope to have an "opaque" group to express something like that.
I don't know whether it's a good idea, but in Valen I'm trying to decouple access capabilities away from the reference types as much as possible. We'll see if that bet pays off.
[0] https://verdagon.dev/blog/seamless-fearless-structured-concu...
> The key here is that one _can_ express immutable references in Valen; an immutable reference is a reference that the containing function doesn't express a `mut` effect for. And once we have immutable references, we get all of the nice concurrency benefits that Rust trailblazed.
I'm contemplating this. Is it enough?
Suppose I have an object (I'm not even trying to get the syntax right, especially since Valen's syntax appears a bit different from Rust's):
And I also create a structured concurrency thingy in the same scope: Now I pass references to both of these down the callchain, through a few functions, maybe via some structs with lifetime parameters, and in the inner function I do this: where print_in_rust is a Rust function taking &T. (I haven't the faintest clue how to spell that in Valen.) So I'm making a closure, and the closure captures obj, and the closure needs obj to exist and be immutable for the lifetime of the closure, which exceeds the creating function's lifetime. It's bounded by the workgroup's lifetime, and Rust is fine with this.But, if I'm understanding you right, the immutability of the referent of obj depends on the signatures of everything in the callchain that might execute during the lifetime of the closure. How does that work?
edit: On further contemplation, I don't think that actual concurrency is needed to illustrate it. I think the same issue exists if I have a T<'a> that has a method that takes an &'a reference (probably like store_a_reference(&mut self, ref: &'a u32)) and dereferences ref both immediately and later and asserts that it sees the same value both times.
Sorry, I think my attempts to simplify/explain ended up confusing things. I'll try to be a little more precise.
In Rust, a reference is forever shared/immutable or forever unique/mutable.
In Valen, a reference is... "it depends". Specifically, it depends on the context.
It's similar to a &GhostCell<T>, where its mutability isn't determined yet because the GhostToken isn't present yet.
So, what determines the mutability at any given point in time? The function's `mut` effects (or lack of them) for the group/path that the reference is pointing to.
So we can imagine a `execute_on_4_threads` function like this:
(`Func<void, (), C>` is a trait for a function that returns void, takes no extra parameters, and names its captures as group C).The most relevant fact here is that this function doesn't declare any `mut` effects at all (not on C, not on W's group, nothing), so nothing is being mutated. (And because of that, this function's callees also can't have any `mut` effects; they also can't mutate the data)
Now let's say we changed `workgroup`'s type to `&W in w`, and added a `mut(w)` to the function, to describe that we might modify the workgroup.
At that point, we would still know that we can invoke the closure from 4 threads, because we declared no relationship between `w` and `C`, so the compiler assumes (and enforces) that they're disjoint, have no overlap, nothing in one aliases anything in the other.
Hopefully that helps. Maybe I should write a blog post on this, my posts are usually clearer than my HN comments.
(Also, I'm not sure I understand your edit, if you could clarify that would be much appreciated)
I think I'm still failing to adequately explain what I mean. Let me try being absurdly explicit. The following is ordinary Rust code, and the reader is supposed to pretend that the two functions prefixed with valen_ are in Valen instead.
This compiles except for the *val = 17 line. (rustc's error message is a bit confused, and maybe I'll file a bug about that. If one follow's rustc's advice, the weird error turns into a less weird error.)My point is that Receiver::set() requires a promise that its parameter's referent is immutable for the entire lifetime 'a, which exceeds the lexical duration of set() itself. And valen_outer_fun in Rust knows this to be true as a result of Rust's shared-xor-mutable system, and Rust's borrow checker verifies this:
a) the code would compile if I removed the offending *val = 17
b) the code, correctly, does not compile as written
c) If I force the issue by replacing *val = 17 with:
then it panics and we can all imagine we're using C++ instead of Rust :)But valen_inner_fun does not mutate val, and if I understand right then this means that Valen would accept its Valen equivalent without mut(val), and this seems unsound to me.
When I first thought of this, I imagined set() instead being a work-dispatching function that would run its passed-in closure and hit UB due to a data race with the *val = 17 line, and my edit was my realizing that there's a simpler non-concurrent example.
Rust solves a similar problem in closures with unique immutable references, but they're not quite the same.
In my mind, a no-access reference would have exactly the same lifetime rules (except for the exclusivity part) as any other reference. And they'd have the same size and lifetime rules.
Unsafe Rust could promote a no-access reference to a shared or a mutable reference, and the unsafe code would be responsible for not violating exclusivity rules but would have a guarantee that the referent actually exists. Using unsafe code to create a no-access reference to a nonexistent object or to a misaligned object would be UB.
Safe code could convert the other way:
This is not an entirely serious proposal.Under NLL, reference lifetime is defined by the places where the reference is used, and noaccess types can't be used. So then reference lifetime has to devolve to the spans where the reference is live, which is only defined lexically.
So for example:
Hence the questionAha, gotcha. I assume that any such reference would either do nothing or would be used by unsafe code (presumably by conversion through a raw pointer but maybe direct unsafe conversion to regular references could also be allowed).
Your example is sneaky, though. Lifetime issues aside (suppose the next line of code uses b), that’s a noaccess reference to memory (an object? a place? I’m not sure what the current term is) that is only guaranteed to exist so long as data is not mutated. So the code with a subsequent use of data would error.
But if it were instead:
Then it would not error.It may be interesting to focus on how exactly these planned "no-access" references would differ from raw pointers? Access through raw pointers is an unsafe operation already.
nit: you need a better way of laying out asides/footnotes. when they get bunched up like at the start of this article you start having to scroll full screens back and forth. at least make the numbers on the asides link back to their position in the main text
They're fragment links, so you can use your browser's back button to go back to where you were.
Yes, absolutely, lol. This article is really pushing my notes system past its limits. And it loops between six note colors, which normally isn't a problem, but is here. During the holidays, I want to see if I can implement Tufte notes like in https://edwardtufte.github.io/tufte-css/
This is super exciting!
Having mutability not be a property of the data, but of the function arguments reminds me a lot of modes from Jane Street’s OxCaml ^1 which is really interesting to me, as OxCaml’s focus is not really about memory management (they still use garbage collection for everything not on the stack). Feels like we might be converging towards a new standard! I can see the morning sun on the horizon :)
[1]: https://oxcaml.org/documentation/modes/intro/
> Having mutability not be a property of the data, but of the function arguments [...]
I don't know if you were aware of this, but Rust has that too. (Actually it's a property of any binding, not just function parameters)
Interesting! I can’t say I’m that familiar with Rust beyond surface level usage. What feels different is that you can declare a reference as mutable or not in Rust whereas in Valen or OxCaml it’s strictly declared in a function’s arguments.
Off-topic (as I don't have the knowledge to intelligently comment on the concept): all I can think when I hear the name "Valen" is Babylon 5. I wonder if it's a coincidence or a deliberate reference?
Perhaps Valen will unite borrowing, reference counting, and generational references... just like how a certain Babylon 5 figure united the fractured Minbari Castes and lead them to victory.
The about page says Valen is a successor to the Vale programming language, so I doubt it.
Mojo's origin can represent a lot of these semantics. I think a lot was learned from Nick's proposal, even if it wasn't directly implemented. Here is an example of how you could represent the first snippet, where two references can update the same list: https://godbolt.org/z/78bhzWjYM
Unfortunately, Mojo kind of limits itself by forcing all parameters to be unique references or shared references. So the first example works in Mojo, but not the `step` example nor the `attack` example from the original group borrowing explanation. [0]
I hope they one day upgrade to full group borrowing, it would be a nice fit for them.
[0] https://verdagon.dev/blog/group-borrowing
This looks cool for code-driven systems where code has static knowledge of every path in the system. It might be strictly better for things like rendering where types of rendering are code-driven. Like your world can have skybox and such. The examples assuming gamedev 'world' and 'entity' are completely misleading though. Because I think everyone has moved on to data-driven worlds. Think of entity 'advance' from the code examples as an 'entity blueprint execute'.
How likely is it that such a borrow checker could be "backported" to Rust? Maybe in a new edition?
You know, it's not crazy. Niko wrote about lifetimes based on places back in 2024, [0] though it was in the context of shared-xor-mutable, which is consistent with Rust's spirit.
And Rust already supports forms of mutable aliasing already, such as with Cell, and GhostCell which is halfway towards Valen's approach. I would love to see someone augment GhostCell to have the sort of "invalidation" logic that group borrowing does. In fact, Plecra is working on something like that with their (WIP) "Exclusion Typing". [1]
On top of that, Polonius already thinks in terms of "paths", just like Valen does. So it's not so much a question of compiler design, but of language design, and how Rust would expose it to the user.
[0] https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2024/06/02/the...
[1] https://dilated.me/blog/posts/introduction-to-exclusion-typi...
It would have to take &Cell<T> references or the like in order to preserve the existing uniqueness properties for &mut T references. Not so different ultimately from what GhostCell, QCell, LCell etc. do already, except possibly simpler in some ways.
IIRC this Verdagon guy had a language called Vale... is Valen a rename or a new project?
Edit: tfa makes it clear it's a separate project
Hi! Kind of both. Even though Valen reuses 90% of the Vale compiler, its approach (Rust interop, borrow checking with mutable aliasing, etc.) is so different that it really needed a new name.
Also, I really like where Vale ended up, Vale's generational references + region borrowing was a truly weird and unusual memory safety blend. I didn't want that combination to be lost to time, so I wanted "Vale" to keep referring to that.
A bit sad to see Vale archived. Have you written a final post on it (lessons learned, the good and the bad, fundamental strengths and weaknesses, future research needed, all that)?
No, but that's a great idea. Vale definitely taught me a lot about languages and architecture. I might do that...
Thank you. Your writings on memory safety and other similar topics is appreciated, and the work you are doing seems to point in a very interesting direction that I am sure will bring a new breakthrough similar to what Rust (or, more accurately, Cyclone) brought. Very interested in what will percolate in Mojo and Ante too.
the link under recent posts here https://verdagon.dev/home 404s, as it links to https://verdagon.dev/blog/valen-memory-safety instead of https://verdagon.dev/blog/valen-group-borrowing . Interstingly this shows the page is hosted on Firebase, which is a bit unexpected for a static blog
Should be fixed now, thanks!
I noticed that there is no control flow in the examples.
Next article =) How the borrow checker handles ifs and loops is a pretty fun topic. If-statements work like you'd expect (invalidations from both branches are merged). Loops is where it gets weird: we have to scout all the invalidations that happen inside the loop and then "replay" them _before_ the body of the loop. I can explain it more if you'd like.
I was wondering about the case where a reference points to a different path depending on control flow. I guess you can just design your language to make this impossible but this is still possible to do with pointers in C/C++.
Theoretically, we can have a reference that points to two paths, a "path union" so to speak. If the user explicitly typed out the path union, it would be something like:
let my_ref &Entity in (live_list[], dead_list[]) = if ...
though it would be nicer in practice, because the compiler could infer that.
Haven't implemented it yet of course, but the data structures in the borrow checker are designed with this in mind.
Would it then be possible to mutably reference two entries in the same hashmap?
Yep, that comes for free from the model. Though, if you're asking if we can have two unique references (like `&mut`) to two different entries, not yet. Nick's original proposal had some thoughts on how we can do that, and Zeta (another language implementing group borrowing) has some neat dependent-type-ish mechanisms for that. I'm still considering what Valen will want to do there.
Edit: it turns out, Ante has path unions! https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/comments/1x37b...
Checking the following code, could you confirm that is does not work concurrently ? The "world" var is read-only, does it mean that all other entities are also readonly (cannot be modified by another thread, for instance) ?
Yep, that works today. The neat thing here is that `world` is immutable _except_ for its `.entities[]` elements.
That wouldn't be shareable with another thread, because part of it is `mut`. _Theoretically_ we could make this shareable with other threads if we had another kind of effect, let me know if you're curious about that.
The `entity in world.entities[] mut` gives `step` blanket permission to mutate any element inside world.entities. We wouldn't be able to say "all other entities are readonly".
Though, it's worth mentioning that `advance` and `resolve` both receive the entity as a unique reference (since it's the only reference into a group which has a mut effect).
Is it possible to retrofit it to Freepascal, D, Freebasic or even Java?
Maybe! I think about D a lot when designing Valen, since they attempted to blend borrowing with garbage collection. Swift is facing some of the same challenges, and I expect Java could soon too now that Valhalla has landed.
If Valen solves those challenges as well as I think it can, it could be a good direction for them to explore.
D is my favorite (I am a dinosaur) and I hope both Valen and D progress on that front.
A function signature describes the paths it modifies.
The problem with this is that it imposes a cost on abstraction. Zero-cost abstraction is one of the most fundamental design principles behind both C++ and Rust.
A field-path into a struct/enum fundamentally depends on its concrete implementation. If you hide the fields of a struct and use getters/setters, you break the ability to talk about the "paths modified" by a function which uses getters/setters.
Aside: it really annoyed me that I had to read halfway through this article to find the first attempt at defining "group borrowing". The whole first half of the article is basically fluff.
> The whole first half of the article is basically fluff
There are multiple links in the article that suggest the reader skip to the good stuff if they are already familiar with how borrow checking works
Path Borrowing reads clearer to me, "group" made me look for a group type.