The Coq mailing list

[Pedro Quaresma <pedro AT mat.uc.pt>]

I agree with this last post.

My two cents (clarifying the English pronunciation):

Coq to be pronounced as "Coke" (with a loud "e").

... the sky is the limit, look the TeX example, the opening of the TeX
Book, is about the "name of the game"

You can even say "Coq" to be pronounced "roaster" :)

Às 14:42 de 07/04/21, Tadeusz Litak escreveu:
> The thread is unfortunately named, as the discussion has long ago
> ceased to be about the logo, but the idea to rename it has not caught
> on. Even though there were good reasons to rename the thread. There is
> a lesson in it.
>
> Anyway, the proposed list of "reasons to keep" does not include the
> most important one (apart from massive legacy, second to none in
> fact). One would need to reformulate point 2. It is not just about
> making sense in French. If it is correct that Coq's name appeals to
> French national pride and that it helps to get funding and
> institutional support in France, this is a huge issue.
>
> Similarly, it seems incorrect to say "it *was* developed in France".
> Unless I'm mistaken, regardless of huge international following and
> user base, the core development, maintenance and the entire
> infrastructure are still provided by French institutions and it's
> unlikely to change in foreseeable future. In fact, this institutional
> support seems to be as important a factor in Coq's survival as its
> solid theoretical foundations.
>
> So while minor name modifications like "COQ", "Coq au... <French word
> of choice>", "Côq", "Le Proveur Coq" or simply "Le Coq" (I actually
> like that one) seem worth considering and so does the idea of
> clarifying the English pronunciation,  a more drastic change could
> have a few unintended consequences.
>
>
> On 7/4/21 2:52 PM, Giselle Reis wrote:
>> I think the 100th message in this thread should be a summary of
>> pro/cons arguments so far.
>>
>> Reasons to change:
>> 1. People are uncomfortable when saying Coq in an English conversation
>> 2. English is the main scientific communication language
>> 3. It can be a barrier for people to join the community
>> 4. It stems from a silly joke
>>
>> Reasons to keep:
>> 1. Legacy
>> 2. It was developed in France and the name makes sense in this language
>> 3. We are not changing other English words because they feel
>> uncomfortable in other languages
>> 4. We should do better than giggling at silly words (we do not, but
>> we should)
>>
>> They are, of course, not all weighted the same (that is very
>> subjective), and I might have missed something, but these are the
>> points that stood out.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 3:39 PM Mario Frank <mafrank AT uni-potsdam.de>
>> wrote:
>>> Dear Jason,
>>>
>>> you are right - there are more or less handy alternatives. I could
>>> adopt one of those.
>>>
>>> Thx for the hint.
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 07.04.21 um 14:22 schrieb Jason Gross:
>>>
>>> Dear Mario,
>>>
>>>>   I like your idea of using the concrete (specification) language
>>>> when communicating about the research/work - and this may work
>>>> pretty well in most cases. Sadly, I usually do not work much with
>>>> Gallina/LTAC/... but rather on extending
>>> (the tool) Coq.
>>>
>>> If you are so inclined, I think there is a relatively easy fix here,
>>> by getting more specific:
>>> - I work on extending Gallina
>>> - I work on extending Ltac
>>> - I work on various tactic languages for constructing Gallina proofs
>>> - I work on infrastructure for interacting with programs which
>>> eventually produce Gallina terms
>>> - I work on plugins which extend the ecosystem of what can be done
>>> in scripts whose primary purpose is to construct Gallina terms
>>> - I work on integrating new features and abilities into the
>>> vernacular language surrounding Gallina.
>>>
>>> Granted, some of these are a bit of a mouthful.
>>>
>>> Also, this last one reminds me of the fact that there are in fact
>>> three languages used in Coq files.  Commands like `Definition`,
>>> `Lemma`, `Search` and `Set Printing All` are neither part of Gallina
>>> nor Ltac, but instead part of the "vernacular" command language
>>> (which as far as I'm aware has no proper name other than perhaps
>>> Vernacular or Vernac (the abbreviation used in OCaml code to refer
>>> to this part of the language)).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021, 03:34 Mario Frank <mafrank AT uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
>>>> Dear Cyrus,
>>>>
>>>> I like your idea of using the concrete (specification) language
>>>> when communicating about the research/work - and
>>>> this may work pretty well in most cases. Sadly, I usually do not
>>>> work much with Gallina/LTAC/... but rather on extending
>>>> (the tool) Coq. This will hold for many people who implement tools
>>>> on the basis of Coq.
>>>>
>>>> So, in the light of the fact that there are people feeling
>>>> uncomfortable with the biased meaning in different languages -
>>>> I can confirm the experiences described by some people here - just
>>>> avoiding the use of the name will not be a
>>>> satisfactory solution (to me). It would rather have the flavour of
>>>> saying "the tool whose name shall not be said" to me.
>>>> There are many (good) proposals in the Wiki and I was especially
>>>> attracted by "Gallus" as it has a quite matching meaning
>>>> and also has a (subconscious) connection to Gallina (in my brain).
>>>>
>>>> Apart from that, I am happy that this topic is discussed so
>>>> extensively. It seems to be necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mario
>>>> Am 07.04.21 um 03:09 schrieb Cyrus Omar:
>>>>
>>>> For you, Adam, I think it would be especially appropriate to say "I
>>>> write Ltac programs" instead, then. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this would require changing how we speak, in a manner that I
>>>> think is quite consistent with our community's values: many of us
>>>> quite value being clear about the distinction between a language
>>>> and the implementations thereof, even in situations where there is
>>>> one primary implementation (e.g. Haskell folks tend to be quite
>>>> good at understanding the difference between Haskell and GHC, and
>>>> of course the Standard ML community has taken this well to heart.)
>>>>
>>>> Cyrus
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:01 PM Adam Chlipala <adamc AT csail.mit.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> That doesn't sound right without terminology changes, at least not
>>>>> for
>>>>> the way I'm used to using Coq.  It's common that more time is spent
>>>>> writing in the tactic language Ltac than in Gallina.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/6/21 8:58 PM, Cyrus Omar wrote:
>>>>>> The first sentence on the About Coq page [1] says "Coq implements a
>>>>>> program specification and mathematical higher-level language called
>>>>>> Gallina".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is accurate, then I think Gallina seems to be the
>>>>>> appropriate
>>>>>> name to use in conversation as a user of the language, in the
>>>>>> same way
>>>>>> that one says "I write C programs" even if what they are doing
>>>>>> day-to-day is interacting with GCC, Clang, or CompCert via a
>>>>>> collection of other utilities, e.g. editors, language servers,
>>>>>> and the
>>>>>> like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The objection that Gallina is one of several languages associated
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> Coq is the same as the objection that in fact there is a C
>>>>>> preprocessor language distinct from C the language, i.e. not salient
>>>>>> in most contexts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There may still be reason to rename the Coq implementation of
>>>>>> Gallina
>>>>>> (and friends), but it would make it less urgent in that it is
>>>>>> only in
>>>>>> relatively sophisticated company, where crude innuendo is
>>>>>> increasingly
>>>>>> (though not yet universally, I concede) recognized as inappropriate,
>>>>>> that one needs to mention which particular implementation of a
>>>>>> language they use or work on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cyrus
>>>>
>
-- 

At\'e breve;Deica Logo;\`A bient\^ot;See you later;Vidimo se;A tra poco;Do 
zobaczenia

Professor Pedro Quaresma
Mathematics Departament, Science and Technology Faculty
University of Coimbra
P-3001-454 COIMBRA, PORTUGAL
Elec. mail: pedro AT mat.uc.pt
webpage: http://www.mat.uc.pt/~pedro/
phone: +351 239 791 137; fax: +351 239 832 568