[chabska]

That sounds nice in theory, but real programs have multiple channels of IO going on: std IO, logging, network, database, file system. I follow discussions in Haskel groups sometimes, and combining and untangling multiple monads is a persistent problem that doesn't have a good solution yet.

[tome]

It's debatable how much one is willing to describe historical solutions like MTL style to be a "good" solution to this problem (I explained the downsides in my talk "A History of Effect Systems"[1] at Zurihac 2025), but I certainly have no hesitation in describing my capability-based effect system Bluefin[2], as a good solution.

For the channels you describe above the type signature would look like this

    Yield String e1 -> -- stdout
    Await String e2 -> -- stdin
    Yield String e3 -> -- logging
    Network e4 -> -- network
    Database e5 -> -- database
    FileSystem e6 -> -- file system
    Eff es r

Six different capabilities that give you access to six different channels of IO. A "Yield" to which you yield strings to stdout, an "Await" from which you can await strings from stdin, a "Yield" to which you yield log messages, and three abstract effects that allow you to do network, database and file system operations (abstract because I'm not sure exactly how you want them defined, but there's an example of the implementation of a file system effect at https://hackage-content.haskell.org/package/bluefin-0.6.0.0/...).

No problem with combining or untangling monads whatsoever. This is the natural conclusion of galaxyLogic's point: instead of dividing your program into two parts (IO and not IO) you divide it into six parts (or maybe 2^6 parts?) according to which fine grained effects you have in scope.

If you (or anyone) has any questions about Bluefin I'm happy to help. Please feel free to ask here or on the issue tracker[3].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsTuy1jXQ6Y

[2] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bluefin

[3] https://github.com/tomjaguarpaw/bluefin/issues/new

[galaxyLogic]

Interesting. Those channels seem to all manage side-effects that persist after program execution. What about state-changes that are made and persist into the memory of the running program? Or is there any need for that?

[tome]

Yes, there's a need for it, and Bluefin provides Modify which allows you to modify a reference to a value in a way that is not observable outside the scope of the capability.

https://hackage-content.haskell.org/package/bluefin-0.6.0.0/...

[jeremyjh]

You should try actually doing some Haskell programming. There are some anti-patterns but the RIO pattern is very coherent and flexible. One IO base monad, one readerT that holds an IORef that gives you access to every other effect you need.

[internet_points]

https://academy.fpblock.com/blog/2017/06/readert-design-patt... is the classic explanation of this pattern

[kccqzy]

> combining and untangling multiple monads

What? I have to assume you mean combining and untangling multiple effects in an effect system. And the solution is simple: don't. IO is the only monad you use for all IO: logging, networking, databases, and filesystems included. Adding a layer of ReaderT on top is about the most complicated you do. Every other monad is pure. Effect systems are a great way to build abstractions that aren't usually worthwhile. It is the same kind of mentality that leads to AbstractWumbleProviderFactoryBean-oriented programming in Java.

[ux266478]

The IO monad is for reifying execution order of a program. You more or less never have multiple IO monads.