12 ms·

I think nextaccountic is not technically fully correct, but he/she is at least correct in the most important part: Safe Haskell is not really practical. But if

by tome 16d ago

I think nextaccountic is not technically fully correct, but he/she is at least correct in the most important part: Safe Haskell is not really practical. But if you don't want an ironclad guarantee and instead you're content with making wrong code obviously wrong even if it's not formally verified, then I recommend Haskell with a capability system (what the Haskell world calls an "effect system"). As far is I'm concerned there are two practical choices in 2026, Bluefin (mine) and effectful (one of Bluefin's inspirations) * https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bluefin https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bluefin * https://hackage.haskell.org/package/effectful https://hackage.haskell.org/package/effectful

josephg 16d ago
How does this compare to Spritely Goblins? I had a good chat with Christine about it at a conference. She said "Ah, you've been infected with the capabilities virus too. My condolences." https://spritely.institute/goblins/ https://spritely.institute/goblins/
- tome 16d ago
  Interesting, I have not heard of Spritely Goblins! But neither Bluefin nor effectful could be described as distributed capability systems/effect systems, so I don't think they're comparable. On infection, I think it's a bit like being infected by mitochondria :)