&quot; stories like this make people interested in formal methods, and Coq, IMO, would be daunting for most beginners. TLA+ is a good, beginner-friendly entry point to formal methods (and you can slowly progress from specification to model-checking and only then proofs), even if you later choose to move to dependent-type approaches and tools like Coq or F*.&quot;<p>TLA+ is an easier intro to verification. However, the verification of C programs to any strong degree will require tools like Coq, possibly esoterica like separation logic, tough specs, tough proofs, and so on. There&#x27;s no easy route for it for beginners except to straight up learn the necessary knowledge with Chlipala&#x27;s book, Software Foundations, or something similar. Then plenty of practice and study of how successful work was done.<p>There&#x27;s a reason we celebrate every time someone comes close to specifying or verifying a significant chunk of C language. It&#x27;s because it&#x27;s Just That Hard (TM). ;)<p>&quot;I beg to differ. TLA+ is commonly (as far as the word &quot;commonly&quot; can be used when formal methods are discussed) used to specify and verify programs in C or any other language.&quot;<p>Hmm. Interesting. I should probably do another survey of TLA+ to see what uses it&#x27;s had in sequential, low-level algorithms like the OP post is on. May be more going on than I was previously aware. All the top results are using Coq and Isabelle&#x2F;HOL, though.