What does HackerNews think of nickel?

[1]: https://github.com/tweag/nickel

On the other hand, Guile is not a DSL but a general purpose language or a Lisp (Scheme to be exact), so it's not actually a downside compared to a DSL in my view.

I myself am torn between these two. Nix community is larger and they have more packages. Guix, being a GNU project, obsessing over ""non-free"" sure won't help in its adoption. Even debian folks toned down their stance on this, why couldn't Guix do so too?

[1]: https://github.com/tweag/nickel

Knowing functional programming helps but Nix still is a hard language to learn. I have a lot of Haskell experience but the Nix language was very confusing for me. At first I couldn't even tell a variable name from a keyword (it is a convention to call variables "self" and "super" in some contexts). The Nix language has been created for research in build systems and has evolved over a long time, so it has accumulated quite a lot of idiosyncrasies and cruft.

I hope that a simpler typed language like https://github.com/tweag/nickel replaces it.

https://github.com/tweag/nickel

- Nix itself has problems of compatibility with Nix! Let me explain...recently NixOS 21.11 released. It still comes packaged with Nix 2.3.16 instead of Nix 2.4 because of incompatibility issues. When the Nix project itself is not able to deliver backwards compatibility I feel uncertain that Tvix might be able to deliver their promise of full compatibility with all the deep architectural changes it plans. Nix does not have a formal specification: Nix is what its C/C++ implementation says. Nix also has deep architectural changes planned going ahead. So Tvix will need to re-architect Nix keeping in mind (and keeping up) with the future changes that are coming. It's going to be tough to build this "alternative" implementation. Users are going to run into weird compatibility issues, not have the patience to resolve them and then just go back to the original Nix implementation.

- A rewrite to a popular project will find it difficult to succeed. There is simply too much momentum in the parent Nix implementation (I'm not talking about the package definitions here) that very few people are likely to adopt this rewrite. This is because most people might not really need the speedup. However, it's possible that the pain around slow evaluation runs so deep that other companies might adopt this too. I don't know enough here.

- The rewrite needs to offer more reason to shift. Right now this rewrite seems to be mainly about performance. There is also a proposal to be able to integrate with GNU Guile. To me this is just avoiding one untyped language (Nix) to replace with another slightly better untyped language (Guile Scheme) (GNU Guix uses Guile also AFAIK). What about introducing typing? https://github.com/tweag/nickel is an interesting project and it would be great to have a system like Nix with optional typing to make writing the derivations more robust. What about rewriting in a safe programming language (e.g. Rust or a GC-ed language)? These things would be likely to excite would-be-contributors and would make your rewrite viable. In other words, the rewrite needs to offer more than just the promise of performance.

Perhaps I have not understood the project goals fully. Maybe the project is all about just being able to leverage the Nix package definitions but have a totally different implementation to instantiate them? But the issue here is that nix-the-language is very intimately tied up with the nix-the-platform and the rewritten implementation will still need to really be extremely compatible to capture all the implicit assumptions in nixpkgs.

Once again, improving nix through a rewrite is a noble goal. It's a tough problem and it would be awesome if the project succeeds!

I have obviously not thought about this as much as you guys and would love to learn how you wish to tackle some of these problems. Maybe some of these issues are not as big as them seem??