HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
agda
agda-stdlib
Agda2014–2020
agda / agda-stdlib

agda-stdlib

The Agda standard library

5Distinct people
7Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
681GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The Agda standard library

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 7:02:50 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year7 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2014-04-16 22:45:07 UTC to 2020-08-18 22:14:11 UTC.

0122014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20142015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20172018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2020

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

1 sources
> What you are doing is claiming types into and out of functions decide if they are functioning correctly. This is not the case at all. When I say proof, I mean it in the mathematical sense. The Curry–Howard isomorphism [0] formalizes the relationship between (mathematical) logic and type theory. Unless you are saying mathematical logic is inconsistent (and thus every mathematical proof is invalid) this is absolutely the case. The same way you can construct a mathematical proof that e.g. n is prime, you can can construct a type Prime n that proves that n is prime [1]. > I think that most bugs aren't because the type you were expecting was wrong but the data produced by a function was wrong. This is where your misunderstanding stems from. Continuing with the example from above, if you have a function: makePrime :: n -> Prime n the fun
Read the rest
ction can not construct (Prime n) if n is not a prime. > If I call `get_lottery_number` by your logic it will always provide me with the real winning lottery number since the types check out. That is absolutely incorrect. Types can't prove functionality. If you give me a specification that constructs predicted lottery numbers I could absolutely turn it into a type :) > They do provide protection from a set of bugs but those bugs are also avoided easily by handling every case But you don't have proof that you are handling every case :) > You can't say a program will have no bugs because the types check out. Is that what you are saying? Yes, if the types correspond to the specification then there are no bugs. The specification can still have bugs though, but that's unavoidable. The thing is that you've proven the program does what you told it to do. Once you stop thinking about types in the Java sense and start thinking about them as logical propositions it will all make sense. I provided you with a couple of links in the other comments and here if you are still interested. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon... [1] https://github.com/agda/agda-stdlib/blob/master/src/Data/Nat...
In Hacker-Proof Code Confirmed

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.