CLISP VS Coq

Compare CLISP VS Coq and see what are their differences

BoxyHQ

B2B SaaS: Make your app enterprise-ready! Authentication - SAML/OIDC SSO, Directory Sync (SCIM 2.0), Audit Logs, Data Privacy Vault, and more! featured

Contents:

» Base Details
» Videos
» Reviews
» Alternatives

CLISP

CLISP is a portable ANSI Common Lisp implementation and development environment by Bruno Haible.

Coq

Coq is a proof assistant, which allows you to write mathematical proofs in a rigorous and formal...

Landing page //
2019-03-19

Landing page //
2022-04-17

GNU CLISP - Brief introduction to install and setup of an artificially intelligent environment

Coq videos

+ Add

Ubiquinol CoQ-10 Supplement Review

Category Popularity

0-100% (relative to CLISP and Coq)

Coq

Programming Language

48 48%

Programming Language

52% 52

IDE

100 100%

IDE

0% 0

OOP

43 43%

OOP

57% 57

Generic Programming Language

0 0%

Generic Programming Language

100% 100

User comments

Share your experience with using CLISP and Coq. For example, how are they different and which one is better?

Social recommendations and mentions

Based on our record, Coq seems to be a lot more popular than CLISP. While we know about 46 links to Coq, we've tracked only 1 mention of CLISP. We are tracking product recommendations and mentions on various public social media platforms and blogs. They can help you identify which product is more popular and what people think of it.

CLISP mentions (1)

What are the advantages for an imperative language to not be expression based?
CLisp is an unfortunate contraction, also naming an implementation, but yes, the Common Lisp spec is that big. Source: over 1 year ago

Coq mentions (46)

The First Stable Release of a Rust-Rewrite Sudo Implementation
Are those more important than, say: - Proven with Coq, a formal proof management system: https://coq.inria.fr/ See in the real world: https://aws.amazon.com/security/provable-security/ And check out Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). - Source: Hacker News / 6 months ago
In Which I Claim Rich Hickey Is Wrong
Dafny and Whiley are two examples with explicit verification support. Idris and other dependently typed languages should all be rich enough to express the required predicate but might not necessarily be able to accept a reasonable implementation as proof. Isabelle, Lean, Coq, and other theorem provers definitely can express the capability but aren't going to churn out much in the way of executable programs;... - Source: Hacker News / 10 months ago
If given a list of properties/definitions and relationship between them, could a machine come up with (mostly senseless, but) true implications?
Still, there are many useful tools based on these ideas, used by programmers and mathematicians alike. What you describe sounds rather like Datalog (e.g. Soufflé Datalog), where you supply some rules and an initial fact, and the system repeatedly expands out the set of facts until nothing new can be derived. (This has to be finite, if you want to get anywhere.) In Prolog (e.g. SWI Prolog) you also supply a set of... Source: 10 months ago
Mark Petruska has requested 250000 Algos for the development of a Coq-avm library for AVM version 8
Information about the Coq proof assistant: https://coq.inria.fr/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq. Source: 12 months ago
Basic SAT model of x86 instructions using Z3, autogenerated from Intel docs
This type of thing can help you formally verify code. So, if your proof is correct, and your description of the (language/CPU) is correct, you can prove the code does what you think it does. Formal proof systems are still growing up, though, and they are still pretty hard to use. See Coq for an introduction: https://coq.inria.fr/. - Source: Hacker News / 12 months ago