We have proof automation now
I've long had a soft spot for dependently-typed languages like Coq Rocq and Lean. They offer the possibility of a type system capable of encoding and enforcing arbitrarily subtle invariants. The sort of thing that, in regular languages, ends up (at best) as a comment, and which quickly gets lost as the size of the team grows.
- ▪I've long had a soft spot for dependently-typed languages like Coq Rocq and Lean.
- ▪They offer the possibility of a type system capable of encoding and enforcing arbitrarily subtle invariants.
- ▪The sort of thing that, in regular languages, ends up (at best) as a comment, and which quickly gets lost as the size of the team grows.
Hacker News (Front Page) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 628 of its stories. Top-voted stories on Hacker News.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
I've long had a soft spot for dependently-typed languages like Coq Rocq and Lean. They offer the possibility of a type system capable of encoding and enforcing arbitrarily subtle invariants. The sort of thing that, in regular languages, ends up (at best) as a comment, and which quickly gets lost as the size of the team grows. Then you get subtle misunderstandings and components that don't quite fit together. It's often the case that those components have grown to a sufficient size that, when the problem is noticed, aligning either of them is a wearying prospect. Perhaps, say dependent types seductively, you could write those invariants formally and have a machine check them. (p.s.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Imperialviolet.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Imperialviolet
