Polysemy's performance?

Liamzy · August 12, 2023, 9:15pm

Mostly Alexis King’s takedown; i.e, effectful / cleft / eff (if Alexis King ever puts it on Hackage) should be standard these days.

github.com

haskell-effectful/effectful/blob/master/benchmarks/README.md

# Benchmarks

## Introduction

The benchmark suite of `effectful` compares performance of the most popular
extensible effects libraries in several scenarios. It implements two benchmarks:

- **countdown** - a microbenchmark that effectively measures performance of
  monadic binds and the effect dispatch.

- **filesize** - a more down to earth benchmark that does various things,
  including I/O.
   
Each benchmark has two flavours that affect the amount of effects available in
the context:

- **shallow** - only effects necessary for the benchmark.

- **deep** - necessary effects + 5 redundant effects put into the context before
  and after the relevant ones (10 in total). This simulates a typical scenario

This file has been truncated. show original

Effectful is about 20-33% more time consuming than a pure implementation in static, but Polysemy is 35-50x. It seems a questionable choice for effect-heavy code.

The reason I brought this up was because I was hoping Sandy Maguire fixed it between the Effectful benchmarks and now.