[froggychairs]

Im sure this is useful but these languages (proof langs, constraints, etc) are always so difficult to parse or read

Adoption for these systems might be higher if they had a more readable syntax (and bonus if they could transpile down to source code you can tweak)

Also maybe I missed it on mobile, but I would love examples of the syntax and examples of application usage on the first page. Maybe this is useful to me! Who knows? That information should be easy to find

[aidos]

I’ve played with minizinc in the past though we use scipopt now instead.

The minizinc code looks pretty reasonable to me though. Specify your variables as ranges. Specify your constraints as math equations. Tell it what you’re looking to maximise / minimise.

https://www.minizinc.org/doc-2.7.6/en/modelling.html#ex-cake...

[antegamisou]

Judging from this particular example, it doesn't look a lot different than more established optimization software like CVXPY, no?

https://www.cvxpy.org/examples/basic/linear_program.html

[mirekrusin]

Yes exactly, we need typescript style solution to get best 80% of ocaml/haskell available to joes kind of thing.

[yakshaving_jgt]

Do you not find this idea somewhat embarrassing?

Why does everything need to look like JavaScript in order for Average Joe programmer to be able to read it?

[mirekrusin]

It absolutely doesn’t.

But I can’t use OCaml or Coq at work.

I can use typescript. I can use algebraic data types, well typed functional combinators, exhaustive switch statements (through linter) and other functional design patterns.

I’d like to be able to use formal proofs. If it means dumbed down version that average joe can work with that can gain wider adoption - that’s much better situation to be in than not having anything at all.

There must be more developers in similar situation.