Effect vs Eff

[rvdalen]

Hi,

I am seeing some things about an `Effect` type that is being introduced.

Are we moving away from `Eff ()`?

Will `Eff` still be kept around when you want finer grained control of effects?

Can someone just give a short description of what the intention is here with the new Effect type?

Regards

--Rouan

[Christoph Hegemann]

See https://github.com/purescript/purescript-eff/issues/25

My TLDR: Effect rows are useful and once you're accustomed to them you can track lots of relevant information using them, but they don't make for a good default. They are anti-modular in that you need a canonical location for an effect like DOM, they create boilerplate, and introduce a layer of complexity for beginners/intermediate users that provides little benefit in their small/medium sized projects.

[rvdalen]

Hi Christoph,

Thanks for the reply.

I read the thread.

So if I understand correctly, Purescript will now have both a simple `Effect` type (without the effect rows) and

the `Eff` extensible effects types and we can choose which one we want to use?

Regards

--Rouan

[Alex Berg]

Right, you can opt-in to use the phantom typed effects with effect rows (Eff), but the community's core libraries will use the one without effect rows (Effect).

There is also the purescript-run library which provides a more "proper" implementation of extensible effects, which you might be interested in.

[rvdalen]

Thanks Alex,

I have successfully switched over my code base to purescript 0.12.0 :)

When you say "proper" can you give a short explanation of why `purescript-run` is more proper than `Eff`?

Regards

--Rouan