cats-effect VS Poetry

Those benchmarks are using a snapshot version of cats-effect. I don't know where that one comes from, but previously they were using a snapshot from https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect/pull/3332 which had some issues (3.5-6581dc4, 70% performance degradation), which have since been resolved (see that PR for more info and comparative benchmarks).

Recently, CE3 has had similar issues reported across multiple repositories, almost an epidemic of reports!

The one advantage Rust has over Scala is that it detects data races at compile time, and that's a big time saver if you use low level thread synchronization. However, if you write pure FP code with ZIO or Cats Effect that's basically a non-issue anyway.

See also cats-effect and fs2. cats-effect gives you your IO Monad (and IOApp to run it with on supported platforms). fs2 is the ecosystem’s streaming library, which is much more pervasive in functional Scala than in Haskell. For example, http4s and Doobie are both based on fs2.

On the contrary, switching to the functional mindset, with something like Typelevel Scala3 and respective cats and cats-effect fs2 frameworks, helps to rethink a lot of designs and development approaches.

I think "better Haskell on JVM" (in contrast to "worse Haskell") is a good identity for Scala to have. (Please note that this is an intentional hyperbole.)

Of course, there are areas where Haskell is stronger than Scala (hint: modularity, crucial for good Software Engineering, is not one of them). And Scala has its own way of doing things, so just imitating Haskell won't work well.

Examples of this "better Haskell" are https://typelevel.org/cats-effect/ and https://zio.dev/ .

All together, Scala may be a better choice for you if you want to do Pure Functional Programming. And is definitely less risky (runs on JVM, Java libraries interop, IntelliJ, easy debugging, etc...).

None of the other languages you mentioned are viable in this sense (if also you want a powerful type system, which rules out Clojure).

I agree that Rust's identity is pretty clear: a modern language for use cases where only C or C++ could have been used before.

I would use Scala. I like FP and Scala comes with some awesome libraries for concurrent/async programming like Cats Effect or ZIO. Good choice for creating modern style micro-services to be run in the cloud (or even macro-services, Scala has a powerful module system, so it's made to handle large codebases).

https://typelevel.org/cats-effect/

https://zio.dev/

The language, the community and customs are great. You don't have to worry about nulls, things are immutable by default, domain modelling with ADTs and patter matching is pure joy.

The tooling available is from good to great and Scala is big enough that there are good libraries for typical if not vast majority of stuff and Java libs as a reliable fallback.

What took my interest is this (for both JVM and future multithreaded Scala native): https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect/discussions/3070 Having the same threads poll available IO events and execute callbacks should improve performance greatly

The author is the creator of Monix and implemented the first version of cats-effect. He knows what he is doing.

You want Kernmantle, which quite honestly shouldn't be hard to implement around Cats and cats-effect. In particular, although Kernmantle doesn't require the use of the Arrow typeclass, there happen to be Arrow (actually ArrowChoice) instances for both Function1 from the standard library and Kleisli from Cats itself, given a Monad instance for the Kleilsi's F[_] type parameter. In other words, we should be able to port Kernmantle from Haskell to Scala (with the Typelevel ecosystem) and instantly be able to use pretty much anything else from the Typelevel ecosystem, or wrapped with it, in our workflow graphs. Pure functions, monadic functions, applicative functions, GADTs with hand-written interpreters, any of it. I think this would be eminently worth doing.

You can manage dependencies in Python with the package manager pip, which comes pre-installed with Python. Pip allows you to install and uninstall Python packages, and it uses a requirements.txt file to keep track of which packages your project depends on. However, pip does not have robust dependency resolution features or isolate dependencies for different projects; this is where tools like pipenv and poetry come in. These tools create a virtual environment for each project, separating the project's dependencies from the system-wide Python environment and other projects.

Poetry provides packaging and dependency management for Python. If you haven't already, install poetry via pip:

Poetry

The Semantify repository provides an example Astro.js project. Ensure you have poetry installed, then build the project from the root of the repository:

Has anyone else been paying attention to how hilariously hard it is to package PyTorch in poetry?

https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/issues/6409

Based on this comment 5 days ago[0], it's working? I'm not sure didn't dig in too far but based on that comment it seems fair to say that it's not fully Poetry's fault because torch removed hashes (which poetry needs to be effective) for a while only recently adding it back in.

Not sure where I would stand if I fully investigated it tho.

[0] https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/issues/6409#issuecom...

We will be running this project in Python 3.10 on Mac/Linux, and we will use Poetry to manage our dependencies. Later, we will bundle our app into a container using docker for deployment.

Here are the two main packaging issues I run into, specifically when using Poetry:

1) Lack of support for building extension modules (as mentioned by the article). There is a workaround using an undocumented feature [0], which I've tried, but ultimately decided it was not the right approach. I still use Poetry, but build the extension as a separate step in CI, rather than kludging it into Poetry.

2) Lack of support for offline installs [1], e.g. being able to download the dependencies, copy them to another machine, and perform the install from the downloaded dependencies (similar to using "pip --no-index --find-links=."). Again, you can work around this (by using "poetry export --with-credentials" and "pip download" for fetching the dependencies, then firing up pypiserver [2] to run a local PyPI server on the offline machine), but ideally this would all be a first class feature of Poetry, similar to how it is in pip.

I don't have the capacity to create Pull Requests for addressing these issues with Poetry, and I'm very grateful for the maintainers and those who do contribute. Instead, on the linked issues I share my notes on the matter, in the hope that it may at least help others and potentially get us closer to a solution.

Regardless, I'm sticking with Poetry for now. Though to be fair, the only other Python packaging tools I've used extensively are Pipenv and pip/setuptools. It's time consuming to thoroughly try out these other packaging tools, and is generally lower priority than developing features/fixing bugs, so it's helpful to read about the author's experience with these other tools, such as PDM and Hatch.

[0] https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/issues/2740

[1] https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/issues/2184

[2] https://pypi.org/project/pypiserver/

We believe that poetry is currently the best tool for this purpose, besides of being the most popular one at the moment. This is why we will use poetry to manage the dependencies of our project throughout this series of posts. Poetry allows you to declare the libraries your project depends on, and it will manage (install/update) them for you. Poetry also allows you to package your project into a distributable format and publish it to a repository, such as PyPI. We strongly recommend you to learn more about this tool by reading the official documentation.

I started using poetry. The problem is poetry will not install if there is dependency conflict and there is no way to ignore: github