We want to make Nix better
Writing the packaging expressions should not be harder than writing the program, for the average developer. The average developer doesn't know FP, at this point. Nix needs:<p>1. Approachability for those not indoctrinated in lazy, declarative, functional programming (i.e. Haskell); nope, Nix Pills are not sufficient for the average dev<p>2. Editor tooling to help guide the writing of expressions (just as anyone learning C# or Rust can use LSP); a better type system for Nix would help here<p>3. Better documentation for practical things like "Using Nix to manage the dependencies and package a C++ program using Meson", rather than having people piece this together from a bunch of disparate docs<p>4. A much better CLI UX than `nix-env -qa` and the like (this is ongoing and experimental, but even that broke recently, causing lots of confusion; now it requires `nix --extra-experimental-features nix-command --extra-experimental-features flakes search nixpkgs`)<p>5. To seriously answer the question: is the Nix language required for the Nix packaging system to exist? Laziness is required, to some degree, but can the next iteration provide an on-ramp which doesn't involve learning a new lang and paradigm? Guix folks sure think so.<p>I feel like Nix folks have been focused so long on solving the tough problems of declarative, deterministic packaging that they haven't been able to focus on the UX. I also feel like folks for whom Haskell is comfortable may not realize just how absurd it feels to everyone else. Perhaps like the early days of Git.<p>I do really hope Nix succeeds in this, though; I've been using it, or it's been using me, for several years. [1] and [2] for more info.<p>[1]: <a href="https://blog.jeaye.com/2015/11/24/nixos/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.jeaye.com/2015/11/24/nixos/</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://blog.jeaye.com/2017/07/30/nixos-revisited/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.jeaye.com/2017/07/30/nixos-revisited/</a>