| I've been following Unison since almost the beginning (back in the structure editor days!). It's a very cool project, https://www.unison.cloud/our-approach/ is a great read, and the Unison language (especially their formulation of effect handlers as "abilities") is very cool. There are two specific things here that make me reluctant to use Unison Cloud in my own work: 1. It doesn't look like there's any FFI or way to shell out to other tools within Unison Cloud. I understand that this is necessary to provide the desired static guarantees, but the lack of an escape hatch for using pre-existing code makes this a really hard sell. 2. Typed storage is excellent! What are its performance characteristics? In my experience, gaining expressiveness in storage systems often requires trading away performance because being able to store more kinds of values means we have fewer invariants to enable performance optimizations. How do migrations work? I've always found online migrations to be a major pain point, especially because data rapidly becomes very heavy. (At a glance, it looks like storage is key-value with some DIY indexing primitives, and I couldn't find anything about migration.) The approach article asks "Why is it so complicated, anyway?". My guess would be that: 1. For small projects where you can toss together NextJS and SQLite and throw it onto Hetzner, it really _isn't_ that complicated. 2. For large projects where with large amounts of data, high availability requirements, and very large scale, performance and operability matters a lot, and none of these all-in-one systems have yet to demonstrate good performance and operability at scale. 3. There really is not that much demand for projects between these two sizes. |