effekt VS Vale

I like it. Modern languages that distinguish between pure and impure programs like Flix, Koka, and Effekt do so on the type level instead of syntactically. This has three advantages:

The problem with checked exceptions been identified and solved. The same problem and solution applies to effect handlers. Effekt is a language with lexical effect handlers which doesn't have this problem. Consider the following program in Effekt:

Yes, for you this is the right decision. But for us going to CPS makes everything significantly easier and in cases where you do use control effects significantly faster. For our language Effekt we are exploring different tradeoffs in different backends.

This pattern they observe is nicely captured by effect handlers. These examples are written in Effekt.

This is beyond my level of expertise. But effect tracking? There are some cool languages out there that do that consistently! Search for "algebraic effects". My favorite is Koka. Effekt also seems to be a popular choice.

https://effekt-lang.org/ A research language with effect handlers and lightweight effect polymorphism

Examples are languages like Koka, Effekt, Links, or Unison. These languages come with a type-and-effect system: a function's type not only tell you which values the function accepts and which values it returns, but also which effects it has. This is relevant to your question, because throwing an exception is one such effect.

It seems that with Effekt we are pursuing the same goal, but coming from the opposite direction, perhaps one day we will meet in the middle :). We start from a purely functional language and carefully add effects like mutation.

- https://effekt-lang.org/

Not to be confused with Vale[0].

[0] https://vale.dev/

The article says they created a deterministic hypervisor that runs all pseudorandom behavior from a starting seed to enable perfect re-playability.

But that's all we know so far. I'm assuming there'll be some sort of fuzz testing, and static analysis or some defining actions that your software can perform.

Honestly it sounds a lot like it has a lot of crossover with what the Vale language is trying to solve: https://vale.dev/, but focused on trying to get existing software to that state instead of creating a new language to make new software already be at that state by default.

Why go through all the trouble when you can do this: https://www.hylo-lang.org/ and not spend a second thinking of lifetimes? No, copies will not be issued unless necessary.

Or why not keep exploring this idea as well? More research-oriented than the first one right now, though, so take it with a grain of salt: https://vale.dev/

Another relevant language might be Vale (https://vale.dev), which is aiming for "perfect replayability": https://verdagon.dev/blog/perfect-replayability-prototyped

Interesting. Very low level though and C(++) centric. She there any thoughts on combining the hardware and OS features with rust or https://vale.dev ?

Use a runtime memory management solution that's cheaper than garbage collection (see Vale)

This seems like a tool I'll be using, and this is an almost meaningless criticism, but why the name?

There's already the Vale programming language (https://vale.dev/), but moreover, I don't get the meaning of "vale". You could call it something like Englint which actually hints its purpose.