The Coq mailing list

[Colin Stebbins Gordon <colin.s.gordon AT gmail.com>]

You might be interested in Lamport and Paulson's "Should Your Specification Language Be Typed?" (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/319301.319317). Lamport's publications page includes some commentary on how the paper came to be.

-Colin

On Tue, Mar 3, 2020, 14:44 Jason Gross <jasongross9 AT gmail.com> wrote:

I'm in the process of writing my thesis on proof assistant performance bottlenecks (with a focus on Coq), and there's a large class of performance bottlenecks that come from (mis)using the power of dependent types.  So in writing the introduction, I want to provide some justification for the design decision of using dependent types, rather than, say, set theory or classical logic (as in, e.g., Isabelle/HOL).  And the only reasons I can come up with are "it's fun" and "lots of people do it"

So I'm asking these mailing lists: why do we base proof assistants on dependent type theory?  What are the trade-offs involved?

I'm interested both in explanations and arguments given on list, as well as in references to papers that discuss these sorts of choices.

Thanks,

Jason

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lean-user" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lean-user+unsubscribe AT googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lean-user/CAKObCaqa5NZvJvU_ZpZek%2BOnVEOQETiYpisbgJXhPchMn6PLcQ%40mail.gmail.com.