Decompose VS KEEP

I use Decompose, although I also have a kmp project which that supports. I find the compose extensions providing a very easy API when integrating with compose.

For one of our apps we used https://arkivanov.github.io/Decompose/ for navigation. It is mentioned in the Compose Multiplatform repo, but we found it pretty obscure to use and it has some confusing concepts built in.

View model is Googles recommended approach, but there are other approaches out their you can use like decompose

When you are building your app in KMM, sometimes you need to pack some libraries along with project files in the shared module. For example if you are using Decompose you need to access it's Value class in Swift.

I don't have much experience with conductor, so I'm curious what your concerns about lifecycle is lacking compared to fragments? But if your team already knows that framework I might just stick with views over fragments. I see there is a compose integration if you do ever plan on picking that up with conductor. Otherwise compose makes fragments obsolete and your team already knows conductor. I do agree the navigation story in compose is not mature especially after jetpack compose navigation. But there are other 3rd party libraries like compose destinations or decompose, but would be nice to see something better 1st party.

I personally like decompose for its testability, clear separation of concerns, and apis for compose animations. Plus it's multiplatform so you can use it for other kmp targets.

Full discretion, all my new apps are built using mvi with MVIKotlin and decompose for the compose extensions for navigation animations. A sample project I have built with that architecture can be found here.

Check out Decompose, it's multiplatform - https://github.com/arkivanov/Decompose

Decompose

`Either foo()` and `Foo foo() throws MyError` and are pretty much isomorphic.

https://github.com/Kotlin/KEEP/blob/master/proposals/stdlib/...

Nice. So for example, it looks like Kotlin has a nearly identical feature at the language level which will be optimizable when Valhalla ships: https://github.com/Kotlin/KEEP/blob/master/notes/value-class...

> In the future, in a Valhalla-capable JVM, JVM primitive classes will enable efficient representation of Kotlin value classes with an arbitrary number of underlying fields on JVM.

Most other languages agree that checked exceptions are not good by not having them.

As for alternatives, Try/Result and similar monads have decent adoption even in Java, but personally I quite like the Kotlin philosophy [1] to not have generic error containers and either use runtime exceptions or make failures of the return type.

[1] https://github.com/Kotlin/KEEP/blob/master/proposals/stdlib/...

If you want to read more and don't want to google it: https://github.com/Kotlin/KEEP/blob/data-objects/proposals/data-objects.md

Under the hood: https://github.com/Kotlin/KEEP/blob/master/proposals/coroutines.md .

you can check more here

You can use explicit API mode, then everything needs explicit visibility