Rocq
No written verdict yet. Here is what commenters said.
5recommend
1warn against
Nov 2, 2025first mention
Oct 31, 2026latest mention
Why people recommend it
“which doubles as an introduction to Rocq”
Show 3 more
“look into Rocq (which uses CoIC, like Lean, but is more rigorous about it)”
“Don't forget the amazing theorem provers too”
“Rocq (dependently typed), which also has a great track record.”
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
- Extracting verified C++ from the Rocq theorem prover at Bloomberg 4 mentions
- LLMs are making formal software verification feasible at a much larger scale 2 mentions
- The Case Against Formal Verification, 50 Years Later 2 mentions
- AI, Lean, and the Future of Formal Verification, with Lean Creator Leo de Moura 1 mention
- What mathematicians should know about the Lean Theorem Prover: reliability & AI 1 mention
- Anatomy of a Lean proof for software engineers 1 mention
Data: rocq.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 24
“we've generated millions of lines of Lean 4, TLA+, and Rocq”
“Rocq does not have trusting trust concerns since it's implemented in OCaml and C”
“imported into Rocq with rocq-read-file”
Indeed. The people who suggested the change in 2021 and the mailing list threads have been purged from the search engines, but this thread is still here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26738980 Talia Ringer, the main proponent, now writes posts that AI will turn out OK (and works on proof automation for programs so that more software engineers can become unemployed): https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/17/be
“which doubles as an introduction to Rocq”
“my main toolbox of formal verification tools in the past have been Rocq, Idris, Dafny, and TLA+”
“It seemed to me from the survey that most people didn't want it changed or didn't care”
“I think it’s rocq now.”
“I would assume the variants used in Rocq and Lean are proven sound.”
“the Coq (now Rocq) theorem prover”
“Provers such as Rocq (and I assume Lean) additionally want their proof objects”
“I did spend a grad class with rocq (coq at the time)”
pay attention to this one https://higherorderco.com/ and wait for bend2 announcements
“use https://rocq-prover.org/ for that purpose”
And now instead of being confused for a bad word, it gets confused with https://www.roc-lang.org/
“Why3, Rocq and Agda are other obvious contenders.”
“look into Rocq (which uses CoIC, like Lean, but is more rigorous about it)”
“reason directly over the functional code in Rocq”
“only the source (Rocq) programs that are formally verified”
If I understand this correctly, it translates Rocq to C++? Took me several minutes to even understand what this is. Why is it called an extraction system? Who is this for? I'm confused. edit: I had to dig into the author's publication list: https://joomy.korkutblech.com/papers/crane-rocqpl26.pdf Testing remains a fundamental practice for building confidence in software, but it can only establish correctness over a fi
“You can map Rocq `bool`s to C++ `bool`”
“program extraction like in Rocq probably deserves some discussion”
“Don't forget the amazing theorem provers too”
“Rocq (dependently typed), which also has a great track record.”