eff VS hoogle

You can swap-out implementations for testing, avoid the crazy N^2 instances issues, etc. They're pretty cool. Currently there are many competing libraries. polysemy and eff both have good examples on their homepages.

Effect systems and Algebraic effects. ocaml has just released a stripped-down effect system. People are also working on Effect systems for Haskell (eff, fused-effects, effet). Koka is a language built with effects first and foremost and it’s rapidly gaining popularity. Unison also has effects.

There are also a few subtle issues that arise with delconts related to semantics of higher order effects (see here and here), but they might be solvable.

Details are in https://github.com/hasura/eff/issues/12 and https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/pywuqg/unresolved_challenges_of_scoped_effects_and_what/.

You'll get fearless parallel with STM in the mixture, and GHC is getting a work in progress effect system for Haskell, as Delimited continuation primops has been merged.

My last example is algebraic effects, some of which have been made possible in a both practical and efficient way thanks to extremely recent research, and that I can use to implement architectures like Ports and Adapters or Clean Architecture and have very maintainable code. (Extensible Effects — An Alternative to Monad Transformers was published in 2013, Effect Handlers in Scope was published in 2014 and they are behind Polysemy, while there is ongoing work on effects with even better performance, like Eff)

cleff's Eff monad is esentially implemented as a ReaderT IO. [...] This is first done by eff, [...]

Here is link number 1 - Previous text "eff"

This is essentially how continuation based effect systems work, check out eveff and eff.

Languages such as Koka only support algebraic effects, not scoping operations such as catch and listen. The Effect Handlers in Scope paper introduces scoping operations, which lead to the Haskell libraries fused-effects and polysemy, but they turned out to have some weird semantics. eff is her effort to fix that.

Dimensions behave somewhat like a "type system" for math. These dimensional-analysis tricks act like the trick you see in Haskell sometimes, where you can easily guess an implementation of an expression once you know it's type (or e.g. search by type signature https://hoogle.haskell.org/ )

Ideally like this: https://zio.dev/reference/#concurrency

Or this: https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=fork

{ "customLocalFormatters.formatters": [ { "command": "make format", "languages": ["haskell"] } ], "emeraldwalk.runonsave": { "commands": [ { "match": "*.hs", "isAsync": true, "cmd": "make retag retag_file=${file}" } ] }, "ghcid.command": "make ghcid", "goto-documentation.customDocs": { "hs": "https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=${query}" } }

You had a look at Hoogle?

https://hoogle.haskell.org/

For some type signatures there is (are) only one (or only a few) meaningful implementation(s).

I'm in the middle on operators. I like being able to define my own, but I understand how it's challenging to figure out what the hieroglyphics mean when you're not familiar with them. https://hoogle.haskell.org/ can be a help here

> In something like Haskell I need to know upfront what I may do with some "object". The IDE can't help me discover the methods I need. All it can do is to show me all available functions in scope.

Sorry, but this just isn't true. Hoogle <https://hoogle.haskell.org/> searches function by type, fuzzily: ask for functions whose first parameter is the type of the object-like thing, and you'll get just what you're looking for. And it's perfectly possible to run hoogle locally and integrate it with your editor.

Now, the tooling for a language like Java have had several centuries more of aggregate development work done on them compared to Haskell's tools, and if that polish is a difference-maker for you, that's fine! But it's not a fundamental limitation, and claiming it is is just fud.

In my perusals into the Haskell ecosystem, discovering Hoogle[1] was definitely a revelation on the power of a strongly-typed language. Sometimes, you know the _shape_ of the thing you are looking for, but not the name. The ability to search a repository of packages for all functions conforming to a certain type signature (e.g., (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]) is a superpower.

[1] https://hoogle.haskell.org/

which is quite a bit more readable. You can even search Hoogle for x -> HashMap x y -> y and find it, try it!

https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=x%20-%3E%20HashMap%20x%20...

Haskell has hoogle, which searches Hackage for functions matching names, type signatures, etc.

Hello, I am wondering if there is something like https://hoogle.haskell.org for the rust language.