alt Hacker NewsI agree with your comment in general, however I would say that on my field, the resistence to TLA+ isn't having to think, rather having to code twice without guarantees that it actually maps to the theorical model.
Tools like Lean and Dafny are much more appreciated, as they generate code from the model.
But both Dafny and Lean (which are really hard to put in the same category [1]) are used even less than TLA+, and the problem of formally tying a spec to code exists only when you specify at a level that's much higher than the code, which is what you want most of the time because that's where you get the most bang for you buck. It's a little like saying that the resistance to blueprints is that a rolled blueprint makes a poor hammer.
TLA+ is for when you have a 1MLOC database written in Java or a 100KLOC GC written in C++ and you want to make sure your design doesn't lead to lost data or to memory corruption/leak (or for some easier things, too). You certainly can't do that with Dafny, and while I guess you could do it in Lean (if you're masochistic and have months to spare), it wouldn't be in a way that's verifiably tied to the code.
There is no tool that actually formally ties spec to code in any affordable way and at real software scale, and I think the reason people say they want what doesn't exist is precisely because they want to avoid the thinking that they'll have to do eventually anyway.
[1]: Lean and TLA+ are sort-of similar, but Dafny is something else altogether.