|
I think there's room for both things, and we don't really have to (passive-agressively) squabble about which is better. cats-effect is a meta-abstraction _and_ a concrete implementation of that abstraction. All of its functionality is abstract over the effect type, which for a lot of library use cases is good! (for example, this enables using ZIO with c-e ecosystem libraries; if c-e took the same tactic as ZIO then this wouldn't be possible) When you get down to the application level, though – essentially the effect type is going to be fixed. I doesn't _have_ to be, but it takes superhuman levels of discipline not to make it that way. And ZIO is built for that – if the effect type is fixed to ZIO, it grants a lot of ergonomic benefits. So, ZIO ecosystem components are built with that in mind, and give a lot of ergonomics and higher-level semantics that aren't possible with c-e (or abstract effect types). If cats-effect split the meta-abstraction and the implementation into two libraries, I think this debate would be moot. But, having the implementation together with the meta-abstraction makes cats-effect more likely to leak the latter into the former (I think it's gotten a lot better about this lately, though). Anyway, just saying – both libraries are great, and they're different, and nobody should be made to feel bad about using either one of them. |