Position Paper: Thoughts on Programming with Proof Assistants

Authors:
Adam Chlipala
Affiliations:
Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
Venue:
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS)
Year:
2007

Citing 6
Cited 0

Using Reflection to Build Efficient and Certified Decision Procedures

TACS '97 Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software
The view from the left

Journal of Functional Programming
Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development

Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development
Combining programming with theorem proving

Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming
A language-based approach to functionally correct imperative programming

Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming
Modular development of certified program verifiers with a proof assistant

Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Today the reigning opinion about computer proof assistants based on constructive logic (even from some of the developers of these tools!) is that, while they are very helpful for doing math, they are an absurdly heavy-weight solution to use for practical programming. Yet the Curry-Howard isomorphism foundation of proof assistants like Coq [Yves Bertot and Pierre Casteran. Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development. Coq'Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 2004] gives them clear interpretations as programming environments. My purpose in this position paper is to make the general claim that Coq is already quite useful today for non-trivial certified programming tasks, as well as to highlight some reasons why you might want to consider using it as a base for your next project in dependently-typed programming.