Re: [HoTT] How to make software without money

[Ben Sherman <she...@csail.mit.edu>]

I feel that I should mention some recent developments that are relevant to this discussion, at least with respect to Coq.

Firstly, Paul Steckler recently joined MIT. He works full-time, as an engineer, towards improving Coq as a software system for its users (see the job posting here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/fp-syd/wiff-ks5yVw). I don't know exactly where the funding for his position comes from.

Secondly, Yves Bertot announced earlier this week at the DeepSpec workshop in Princeton (http://deepspec.org/events/) the creation of the Coq Consortium, which will be an organization dedicated to the improvement of Coq as a software system for its users. Industrial and academic institutions can pay an annual fee to the Coq Consortium, which will serve to fund full-time engineers to work on improving the Coq system, and these engineers will prioritize the goals of those who fund them. I think the details are still being worked out. (Again, I am not knowledgable about what funding sources academic institutions can use to pay into the Consortium.)

The goal is that with the Coq Consortium, INRIA researchers will be freed to focus on research-relevant aspects of Coq, and Coq users will be able to use a software system whose quality can only be made possible by the attention of full-time engineers. I am personally hopeful that this strategy will work favorably for all those involved!

> On jun 12, 2016, at 7:05 AM, Andrej Bauer <andrej...@andrej.com> wrote:
> 
> While the efforts expanded on Coq and Agda are truly impressive and
> chivalrous, both pieces of software compare poorly to something like
> Mathematica in terms of software quality (documentation, professional
> GUI design, technical support, cloud support, etc.) This is not a
> criticism of the Coq and Agda teams, just an observation which in
> Slovene could be summarized by the phrase "that's the music you get
> for the money you paid".
> 
> Also, I am not trying to start a war with the lurking Knights of the
> Open Source. I am just saying we have no idea how to bring open-source
> mathematical software to the level of professional software without
> sacrificing the careers of several PhDs and at least one tenured
> professor.
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
> Andrej
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 12:55 PM, andré hirschowitz <a...@unice.fr> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have been thinking to this issue for years (decades?). In France we have
>> this research agency INRIA which has been supporting the Coq project for
>> decades, leading to a fairly "good quality software" (in my opinion). Say
>> twenty years ago, the Coq project was targetting the computer science
>> community and was not ready to "attack" the mathematical community. From
>> this side, the picture seems much better nowadays.
>> 
>> A possible strategy toward the investment of the mathematical community is
>> as follows:
>> 
>> ------------------------
>> 
>> 1- create a body tying (part of) this community with for instance (part of)
>> the Coq project (and/or the Agda project, about which I know little).
>> 
>> 2- obtain specific funding from a Research Agency (NSF, CNRS?) for partly
>> formalized PhD fellowships, together with companion funding for the
>> technical support (eg from the Coq team) to the (partial) formalization.
>> 
>> 3- obtain good applications, coming from ouside this community.
>> 
>> 4- select the winning applications regarding both the interest of the naked
>> thesis, and the feasability of the (partial) formalization.
>> 
>> 5- help collectively the success of each selected project.
>> 
>> 6- Write assessments in particular for the formalization efforts of these
>> newage doctors, so that they win positions whenever they deserve.
>> 
>> ---------------------------
>> 
>> I leave it here.
>> 
>> ah
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2016-06-12 10:04 GMT+02:00 Andrej Bauer <andrej...@andrej.com>:
>>> 
>>> Apologies for a slightly off topic post, but I think it is relevant to
>>> many people on this list.
>>> 
>>> I just looked at some slides by William Stein, the author of Sage (an
>>> open-source alternative to Mathematica) at
>>> http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4127
>>> 
>>> The conclusion is: it's impossible to make good quality software in
>>> academia because there isn't enough money and because making software
>>> doesn't give one any academic credit.
>>> 
>>> I am afraid formalization of math might fall into the same category,
>>> unless we somehow elevate it to a "true science" level. A great deal
>>> has been done in this respect recently by projects lead by Gonthier,
>>> Hales and Voevodsky, but is it enough? Are we even making a dent?
>>> 
>>> At my department, for instance, the folk knowledge propagated from one
>>> generation to another is that "someone" formalized "Landau's book" (I
>>> suppose it was the Automath formlaization of Landau's Grundlagen der
>>> Analysis by Jutting) which proves that "it can be done" but is
>>> otherwise an intellectually barren exercise without academic value. I
>>> still remember one of the professors saying this to the whole class
>>> when was an undergraduate.
>>> 
>>> With kind regards,
>>> 
>>> Andrej
>>> 
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.