Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I feel your answer mixes up the proof assistant language and the metalanguage that the proof assistant is written in. For type-theory-based PAs I agree there is a lot of similarities of design between the PA language and functional programming, and there is a tight connection between type theory, functional programming, and proofs. But I think the OP is asking about the metalanguage, not the language of the proof assistant. (Also, the CH isomorphism might be a bit of a misdirection. For example, HOL-Light also looks like functional programming but doesn’t use the CH isomorphism.) $\endgroup$
    – Jason Rute
    Commented Feb 16 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ I understand your point, but my question is that can I provide the same environment in an OOP language as well? because I want to develop an application that has PA as a part (not the whole) therefore it would be nice to be able to benefit from OOP structures as well. $\endgroup$
    – Kid A
    Commented Feb 17 at 12:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "So it's not that proof assistant designers were like Let's design a programming language for our proof assistant." Well, actually, that's historically exactly what happened. Plus logic isn't Turing Complete, so it can't be a programming language... $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 21 at 2:52