Flow Type VS Coq

I love JS, but I want types. I don't want TypeScript though, but I'll do it if the job requires it. Has anyone tried building in flow for a large project? This was facebook's static type checking approach: https://flow.org/. - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago

In my examples, I’ll use the Flow type system so that it’s easier to follow the idea. The code consists of two parts: a service API and a recommendation flow. - Source: dev.to / over 1 year ago

You think we could try to make it such that people use JS + Flow the static type checker. Source: over 1 year ago

The two biggest contenders in adding static types to JavaScript are Flow (by Facebook) and TypeScript (by Microsoft). As of date, there is no clear winner in the battle. For now, we have made the choice of using Flow. We find that Flow has a lower learning curve as compared to TypeScript and it requires relatively less effort to migrate an existing code base to Flow. Being built by Facebook, Flow has better... - Source: dev.to / over 1 year ago

Just FYI, Facebook has a JS dialect called Flow. There was a point in time that Flow and TypeScript were duking it out, but clearly TS has won. I think Flow is still used inside Facebook, but I don't think it has really caught on in the larger developer ecosystem. Source: over 1 year ago

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

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

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

Information about the Coq proof assistant: https://coq.inria.fr/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq. Source: 12 months ago

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