dune VS eioio

If you are using the dune build system, add the tag(s) to your dune-project file's package stanza. E.g.:

One way to get around this is to modify the api/dune file with (include_subdirs qualified); this means that every subdirectory of api/ can be referenced by module namespacing and we don't have to write dune files for every route (or pages) folder. However, the OCaml LSP does not like it and red squiggles will show up in the editor (although the app with still compile without errors). Trying to develop the app knowing those red squiggles cannot be vanquished would drive me nuts, so instead of using (include_subdirs qualified) I just wrote dune files for every route (and page) which gets rid of the red squiggles.

2) Neither would having all source/targets specified, as that would entail listing them all in the dune file as wildcard rules is apparently still not a thing: https://github.com/ocaml/dune/issues/307

There is a small example on the dune home page: https://dune.build/

Dune (https://dune.build/) is the preeminent build tool for OCaml development. I don't love its input syntax (s-expressions), and I sometimes miss the ability to write high-level functions to reduce boilerplate (especially for unit tests), but it always gets the dependencies right, and it's fast. This is in stark contrast to some of my experiences with various other build systems, and I am super happy that the default option for OCaml build systems is so good.

It's still weird because dune's own site only makes Jane Street references: https://dune.build/.

ONE of the big benefits of OCaml is its powerful REPL (also called the toplevel), the interactive command-line utility where you can load modules, type in and execute code, and see its results. The modern REPL, utop, has powerful auto-completion and integration with the build system dune, which enables productive workflows like loading an entire project's libraries in the REPL and interactively exploring them.

the actual project (Readme has some code samples): https://github.com/ocaml-multicore/eio

For 5.0+ you might want to look at https://github.com/ocaml-multicore/eio for how effects can make async much more pleasant

Great post! I would love to see this extended to OCaml 5 (with eio) and Haskell

Second, effects enable a new style of concurrency libraries like eio that forgoes the need to wrap every asynchronous computation in a monad.

> This is realllly unidiomatic in real world Haskell.

Whether idiomatic or not does not matter. It proves my point:

IO won't save you, and even very mundane effects are not part of the game…

Idris is the "better Haskell" sure, but the effect tracking is still part of the uncanny valley (still IO monad based).

Koka is a toy, and Frank mostly "only a paper" (even there is some code out there).

The "Frank concept" is to some degree implemented in the Unison language, though:

https://www.unison-lang.org/learn/fundamentals/abilities/

Having a notion of co-effects (or however you please to call them) is imho actually much more important than talking about effects (as effects are in fact neither values nor types—something that all the IO kludges get wrong).

I think the first practicable approach in the mainstream about this topic will be what gets researched and developed for Scala. The main take away is that you need to look at things form the co-effects side first and foremost!

In case anybody is interested in what happens in Scala land in this regard:

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/aLE9M37d...

https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/reference/experimental/cc...

But also the development in OCaml seems interesting:

https://github.com/ocaml-multicore/eio#design-note-capabilit...

Look mom, "effects", but without the monad headache!

To enable access to all these features, an exciting new library called Eio is being developed. It uses a new paradigm of direct-style concurrent I/O programming, without the need for monads or async/await, thus avoiding the function colour problem.