Kind VS frag

As a developer of a proof assistant (Kind) I'm highly interested in this line of work. Can you point me to some of these papers? And perhaps people involved in this line of work?

Kind: A modern proof language (though functional).

I have seen in languages like KindLang the definition of Array be like a Binary tree, but there is some magic there in the definition of the Array type that I don't understand yet. Also, I don't want to define the contiguous array further., it should be a literal contiguous array. The Kind "Word" type definition (arbitrary number of bytes) is closer to my contiguous array, but it has a similarly complex definition which like I said I don't understand.

Totally agree about the Blub Paradox, but there's definitely value in Self Types. See, for example, [Kind](https://github.com/Kindelia/Kind), which is able to type recursive data types by using Self Types.

For these who don't know, I'm the author of Kind and HVM. I've recently seen a criticism from an influent person in the community, who I often took as an inspiration, that made me really sad. "the guy behind this has built some impressive-sounding stuff before... it looks like his projects tend to just... go nowhere and he just abandons them and does something else?"

This is very easy with dependent types! For example, in Kind:

Here's one more file than you listed without BangPatterns enabled:

https://github.com/rainbyte/frag/blob/master/src/BitSet.hs

https://github.com/rainbyte/frag/blob/master/src/Command.hs

https://github.com/rainbyte/frag/blob/master/src/Curves.hs

BangPatterns is a normal language extension to have enabled, was this used heavily? (hint: it's not enabled on "every source file.") You listed two of 28 files there, I'm assuming to try to show that the vast majority of the code in that repository is in the IO monad? I'm looking for objectivity here, as you seem to be into. Let's see some numbers. I think anyone that glances at that repo would need some convincing of your claims.