uom-plugin VS typelevel-rewrite-rules

Compare uom-plugin vs typelevel-rewrite-rules and see what are their differences.

uom-plugin

Units of measure as a GHC typechecker plugin (by adamgundry)
Our great sponsors
  • InfluxDB - Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale
  • WorkOS - The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS
  • SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews
uom-plugin typelevel-rewrite-rules
- 4
30 61
- -
0.0 3.0
over 1 year ago 4 months ago
Haskell Haskell
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License LicenseRef-PublicDomain
The number of mentions indicates the total number of mentions that we've tracked plus the number of user suggested alternatives.
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.

uom-plugin

Posts with mentions or reviews of uom-plugin. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects.

We haven't tracked posts mentioning uom-plugin yet.
Tracking mentions began in Dec 2020.

typelevel-rewrite-rules

Posts with mentions or reviews of typelevel-rewrite-rules. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects. The last one was on 2021-09-10.
  • Comparing polymorphic function arguments with GHC
    1 project | /r/haskell | 30 Nov 2022
    I encountered a similar issue in typelevel-rewrite-rules. The user writes type PlusAssoc a b c = ((a + b) + c) ~ (a + (b + c)) to indicate that they want a type like (2 + x) + 1 to be rewritten to 2 + (x + 1). Thus, I want to be able to look at (2 + x) + 1 and learn that yes, it matches the pattern (a + b) + c, with the substitution a = 2, b = x, c = 1.
  • [ANN/RFC] constraint-rules
    3 projects | /r/haskell | 10 Sep 2021
    Nice! Thanks for including a comparison with my package typelevel-rewrite-rules. Since my package indeed struggles with infinite loops introduced by self-triggering rewrite rules, I would like to better understand why your package doesn't suffer from that same problem.
  • Transpiling to GHC Core language
    4 projects | /r/haskell | 30 Apr 2021
    When writing a typechecker plugin, you can eliminate constraints from the user's program by providing an implementation of the corresponding dictionary. The way you provide that dictionary to ghc is by providing a core expression; for example, this evCast futureDict co expression has type EvTerm, whose first constructor takes an EvExpr, which is a synonym for CoreExpr.
  • [GHC Proposals] GHC Maintainer preview
    4 projects | /r/haskell | 3 Apr 2021
    Until then, I guess we can simply poll. Here's a GitHub Action I wrote today which checks if the latest report for a given package includes a failure: https://github.com/gelisam/typelevel-rewrite-rules/blob/main/.github/workflows/check-hackage-matrix.yml

What are some alternatives?

When comparing uom-plugin and typelevel-rewrite-rules you can also consider the following projects:

type-eq - Type equality evidence you can carry around

funspection - Type-level function utilities

type-level-numbers - Implementation of type level natural and signed integer numbers in haskell using type families.

ghc-whole-program-compiler-project - GHC Whole Program Compiler and External STG IR tooling

morloc - A typed, polyglot, functional language

IdrisExtSTGCodegen

meta-typing - 📚 Functions and algorithms implemented purely with TypeScript's type system

constraint-rules - Extend GHC's type checker with user-defined rules, without writing a type checker plugin.