F*
Fewer than 5 people recommend it so far, so there's no written verdict. Here is what commenters said.
3recommend
0warn against
Nov 2, 2025first mention
Sep 8, 2026latest mention
Why people recommend it
“doesn't it seem to be a more appropriate option”
“F* is also worth considering as a proof-oriented alternative to Isabelle that is focused on software verification”
Show 1 more
“I was really pushing for using F*, but it was impossible to get any buy-in from coworkers”
formal methods background, F# developeron “Why don't you use dependent types?”
Caveats and dissent
No one in these comments warned against it.
Often compared with
Who recommends it in their own words
Threads where it came up
- C*: Unifying Programming and Verification in C (2025) 1 mention
- Are We Stuck with Lean? 1 mention
- Learning Lean: Part 1 1 mention
- Why don't you use dependent types? 1 mention
Data: f.json. Quotes are verbatim; the verdict and theme labels are written by a model from these comments, and every clause links to its sources.
All comments 4
“this sounds like F*, another proof-oriented language”
“doesn't it seem to be a more appropriate option”
“F* is also worth considering as a proof-oriented alternative to Isabelle that is focused on software verification”
“I was really pushing for using F*, but it was impossible to get any buy-in from coworkers”