Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

ST instead of Effect? #43

Open
jamesdbrock opened this issue Apr 8, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

ST instead of Effect? #43

jamesdbrock opened this issue Apr 8, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@jamesdbrock
Copy link
Member

Should everything in this package be in the ST monad instead of Effect?

https://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescript-st/5.0.1/docs/Control.Monad.ST.Global#v:toEffect
@garyb
Copy link
Member

garyb commented Apr 8, 2022

I would say not until purescript/purescript-st#31 happens

@jamesdbrock
Copy link
Member Author

This was attempted in 2017 #11

https://github.com/matthewleon/purescript-arraybuffer-safe

@jamesdbrock
Copy link
Member Author

https://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescript-st/5.0.1/docs/Control.Monad.ST.Class#t:MonadST

@jamesdbrock
Copy link
Member Author

Maybe with this ST optimization in purs-backend-es the performance penalty of ST is going away.
https://discourse.purescript.org/t/purs-backend-es-v1-3-0-released/3269

@JordanMartinez
Copy link
Contributor

I believe the same optimizations done in ST are also done in Effect? So, does switching to ST really benefit from that?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@garyb @jamesdbrock @JordanMartinez