Formality VS rado

Also, my current work is using Kind as a foundation, the purpose of this language is exactly what you have asked for, give a check on https://github.com/uwu-tech/Kind.

Kind has a "how I learned to stop worrying and love the `Type:Type`" vibe. That doesn't make it invalid as a proof language. It just inverts the priority: instead of consistency being the default and expressivity being opt-in (as in Agda, with the `type-in-type` pragma), it is expressive by default, and consistency is an opt-in. I strongly believe that is the right way. We plan to add opt-in termination (thus consistency) checkers, it is just not an immediate priority, but the language is completely ready for that. About `Type in Type` specifically, keep in mind that there are consistent, interesting type theories that feature `Type in Type`. So it isn't problematic in itself, and removing it seems wrong.

About erasure, you can flag an argument as computationally irrelevant by writing `` instead of `(x: A)`. So, for example, in the [Vector/concat.kind](https://github.com/uwu-tech/Kind/blob/master/base/Vector/con...) file, `A`, `n` and `m` are erased. As such, the length of the vector doesn't affect the runtime. As a good practice, you may also write `f` instead of `f(x)` syntax for erased arguments, but that is optional.

> TL;DR -- I think the language looks nice, and the compile to JS (from what I read of the Formcore source) looks to be well done. Also, the docs that are present are well presented in a non-academic way that I find pretty readable.

Thanks for the kind words. We put a lot of effort on the compilers and, while there is still a lot to improve, I'm confident they're ahead of all the other languages, by far.

Kind is a functional, general-purpose programming language featuring theorems and proofs. It has the smallest core, a pretty solid JavaScript and Scheme compiler (seriously, check how clean is the generated kind.js), and a syntax that is a middle ground between Haskell and TypeScript, in an attempt to make it more accessible.

I'm writing CONTRIBUTE.md right now.

> in practice, what kind of proof are people building when building real world programs ?

Here's an example of a proof from a Turing machine simulator written in Idris [1]. The claim is that the length of the tape never decreases after taking a step.

The "claim" is stated in the type signature, and the "proof" is an implementation of that type. That's what "propositions as types" means. The whole thing looks like a regular function, except that it doesn't do anything and it never gets called. However, by virtue of having been accepted by the type-checker it verifies the claim about that piece of the program's behavior.

[1] https://github.com/nickdrozd/rado/blob/86790bbb218785e57ea88...