effekt VS effects-bibliography

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/

In addition to those 2 (which I think have phenomenal documentation), the language Eff has more theoretical introduction. There is also the Effect bibliography which has a lot of different effect system in different languages, as well as tutorials and academic papers on the subject.

I think it goes back to the neverending quest to find ways of representing computation that allows of ease of composition, changing implementation details, eliminating classes of errors by construction, etc. Monads have had some success in this arena, but they have notable issues with composition; monad transformers help, but can become unwieldy in their own ways.

An alternative are effects, hypothetically allowing for ease in building programs as separate but composeable components which can then be freely mixed in or swapped out. In practice I have found working with effect systems in Haskell via libraries stresses the type system so much you end up with scoped type variables and type applications everywhere. My understanding is that the theory behind using effects to structure computations comes from category theory's Lawvere theories (see e.g. Pretnar's 2010 dissertation on https://github.com/yallop/effects-bibliography). Lawvere theories give rise to many monads (see Bartosz Milewski's article on it -- https://bartoszmilewski.com/2017/08/26/lawvere-theories/), but with nicer compositional properties.

This is where languages like Effekt, Eff, Frank, and Koka come in -- by writing the entire language and type system to support the theories, a lot of the pain of expressing it in Haskell can be avoided.

Not really an answer but Jeremy Yallop maintains a bibliography on the theory and practice of computational effects.