proofs VS parson

Compare proofs vs parson and see what are their differences.

InfluxDB - Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale
Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews
SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
proofs parson
5 1
286 57
- -
8.8 2.0
17 days ago 11 months ago
Coq Python
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later -
The number of mentions indicates the total number of mentions that we've tracked plus the number of user suggested alternatives.
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.


Posts with mentions or reviews of proofs. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects. The last one was on 2023-09-03.
  • A Taste of Coq and Correct Code by Construction
    3 projects | | 3 Sep 2023
    If you're already familiar with a functional programming language like Haskell or OCaml, you have the prerequisite knowledge to work through my Coq tutorial here:

    My goal with this tutorial was to introduce the core aspects of the language (dependent types, tactics, etc.) in a "straight to the point" kind of way for readers who are already motivated to learn it. If you've heard about proof assistants like Coq or Lean and you're fascinated by what they can do, and you just want the TL;DR of how they work, then this tutorial is written for you.

    Any feedback is appreciated!

  • Thoughts on proof assistants?
    4 projects | /r/ProgrammingLanguages | 13 Dec 2022
    Personally I treat Coq like an extension of my brain. Whenever I'm uncertain about something, I formalize it in Coq. I have a repository of proofs with GitHub Actions set up in such a way forbids me from pushing commits containing mathematical mistakes. I've formalized various aspects of category theory, type theory, domain theory, etc., and I've also verified a few programs, such as this sorting algorithm. Lately I've been experimenting with a few novel types of graphs, proving various properties about them with the aim of eventually developing a way to organize all of my data (files, notes, photos, passwords, etc.) in some kind of graph structure like that.
  • Formally Verifying Rust's Opaque Types
    2 projects | | 1 Aug 2022
    It's always a pleasant surprise to see people using Coq and other formal verification technology. We need more rigor in programming! If this article gave you a thirst for interactive theorem proving and you want to learn it from the ground up, I've recently written a Coq tutorial [1] which covers topics like programming with dependent types, writing proofs as data, and extracting verified code. That repository also contains a handy tactic called `eMagic` [1] (a variant of another useful tactic called `magic` which solve goals with existentials) which can automatically prove the theorem from the article.



  • A complete compiler and VM in 150 lines of code
    4 projects | | 16 Jul 2022
    For anyone who wants to learn Coq, I've just finished writing a tutorial [1] that is aimed at programmers (rather than, say, computer scientists). It covers topics like programming with dependent types, writing proofs as data, universes & other type theory stuff, and extracting verified code—with exercises. I hope people find it useful, and any feedback would be appreciated!


  • New Coq tutorial
    3 projects | /r/ProgrammingLanguages | 5 Jul 2022
    Hi all, Coq is a "proof assistant" that allows you to write both code and proofs in the same language (thanks to the Curry–Howard correspondence). Its uses range from pure math (e.g., the Feit–Thompson theorem was proven in Coq!) to reasoning about programming languages (e.g., proving the soundness of a type system) to writing verified code (e.g., this verified C compiler!). You can "extract" your code (without the proofs) to OCaml/Haskell/Scheme for running it in production. Coq is awesome, but it's known for having a steep learning curve (it's based on type theory, which is a foundational system of mathematics). It took me several years to become proficient in it. I wanted to help people pick it up faster than I did, so I wrote this introductory tutorial. Hope you find it useful!


Posts with mentions or reviews of parson. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects. The last one was on 2022-07-16.
  • A complete compiler and VM in 150 lines of code
    4 projects | | 16 Jul 2022
    That's powerful enough to conveniently write, for example, a numerical root finding program for an arbitrary arithmetic expression.

    But I think that within a complexity budget of 150 lines of code you can maybe be even more ambitious than that.

    The example compiler in is a bit more stripped down than that, but in its 32 lines of code it compiles arithmetic assignment statements to a three-address RISC-like code (though using an unbounded number of registers). is a 16-line version that compiles the same language to a stack machine like your tutorial example.

    In 66 lines of code in I wrote an example compiler which compiles a PEG grammar into a JavaScript parser for that grammar. Admittedly those 66 lines do not include an implementation of JavaScript to run the code on. It compiles the language it's written in.

    In 132 lines of code in I wrote an example compiler which compiles a crippled Forth dialect into i386 machine code, including an ELF header so you can run the result. It also compiles the language it's written in. It also doesn't include an i386 emulator to run it on.

    In 83 lines of code in Neel Krishnaswami wrote a compiler from the untyped λ-calculus to a simple assembly language for a register machine. It also doesn't include an implementation of the assembly language.

    In 18 lines of code in, a simplification of META-II, I wrote a compiler from grammar descriptions to an assembly code for a parsing-oriented virtual machine. It compiles the language it's written in. A Python interpreter for the machine is in (109 lines of code) and a precompiled version of the compiler-compiler for bootstrapping is in

    A slightly incompatible variant of Meta5ix which instead compiles itself to C is in (133 lines of code, depending on how you count). (No C compiler is included.) The precompiled C output for bootstrapping is in

    Meta5ix is extremely weak and limited, really only enough for a compiler front-end; it can't, for example, do the kinds of RPN tricks we're talking about above.

What are some alternatives?

When comparing proofs and parson you can also consider the following projects:

CompCert - The CompCert formally-verified C compiler

peg-bootstrap - A PEG that compiles itself.


pyparsing - Python library for creating PEG parsers

hacspec - Please see

stoneknifeforth - a tiny self-hosted Forth implementation

aneris - Program logic for developing and verifying distributed systems

kefir - 🥛turkic morphology project

ccc-talk - Correct Code by Construction talk's code

PEGTL - Parsing Expression Grammar Template Library

coq-simple-io - IO for Gallina

konbini - Parser library for Kotlin