5 ms·

Sure. Given code which works for a lot of people, versus some organization composed of people, the fault is probably with people and not with code. This follows

Sure. Given code which works for a lot of people, versus some organization composed of people, the fault is probably with people and not with code. This follows from the formal properties of code as mathematical objects, plus the property of probabilistically-checked proofs: If code works for a lot of people, then the code is expected to work generally with high probability. Moreover, there are lots of folks having professional success with Nix, and having consumed enough of their stories, I think that the stumbling blocks that the parent identified are faults of their organization and not of Nix in particular. To see this, first replace "Nix" with "Brand X" and note that the complaints are generic to any community-developed software which doesn't have B2B resellers. Then, consider your own experience learning Nix, and note that usability, poor documentation, and a feeling that things are deliberately cryptic are all common to learning any new tool or programming language. We can comfortably conclude that Nix did not prevent itself from being adopted by the parent's organization. Indeed, it would seem that Nix made itself extremely attractive and adoptable, else it would not have been under consideration!

throwaway894345 7y ago
I don't think Nix works for a lot of organizations as a package manager. It works for a lot of individuals for a different use case (NixOS). If you're mostly installing existing packages from nixpkgs onto a NixOS box, that probably works very well--users don't need to know much about the expression language or the nature of their dependency tree. If you're using it as a development tool, users are going to need to intimately understand Nix, its expression language, and their entire dependency tree. Further, how well Nix works for your development use case largely depends on which language you're using, how well that language is supported by Nix (is it compiled or interpreted, does nixpkgs have good coverage for your language's ecosystem, etc). Notably, working with Haskell or Go in Nix is probably quite easy, while working with Python is quite hard. As an example, I recall trying to build a package for psycopg2 (it wasn't in nixpkgs at the time, and even if it were, for one reason or another we couldn't directly use many packages from nixpkgs), the most popular Python library for interacting with a Postgres database; however, that required me to write packages for a bunch of C libraries that I didn't understand at all, including fishing random header files out of the Postgres source code. No one in our organization including our Nix veterans could figure out how to build it correctly, and it ultimately caused us to move away from Nix (it was among the last straws). Besides, just because it didn't work for us doesn't imply that there's a problem with our personnel (by several industry key metrics, our devops capability is excellent), but rather that the effort required to implement Nix successfully was greater than the work required to use other tooling. We could use C++ instead of Python for our organization, but just because we don't doesn't imply that our organization is incompetent; rather that Python's tradeoffs are more appropriate for our problems. In effect, Nix creates more problems than it solves for us, which is unfortunate because the problems it solves are really important problems, and many of the problems it creates are utterly unnecessary (add docstrings, use a more familiar expression language--maybe Starlark [https://go.starlark.net https://go.starlark.net], provide and document 'escape hatches' so users can use system dependencies where it's prohibitively difficult to hermetically package things, etc).
- beefee 7y ago
  Nix has a way of exposing complex and low-quality build systems. Many pieces of the Python ecosystem fall into this category. For example, it wasn't Nix's fault that psycopg2 had a dependency on postgresql C header files, nor was it Nix's fault that the postgresql headers had to be rearranged for psycopg2's build to work. Nix basically reveals the full complexity of the package's actual build environment, and for some packages the work required to make a reliable build is overwhelming. Some easier to use systems have people doing this work for you, like the Debian project. Others rely on luck to supply dependencies. The thousands of Dockerfiles that run "apt-get update" are a great example of this. After using Nix for a while you start to reflexively shy away from software with low-quality build systems. Nix is not easy to use, but it's best of breed in terms of software supply chain auditability and malleability (anything in the system can be trivially modified or patched). If you can move to an "easy" system, that may be the appropriate trade-off for you, but it means you may be in a domain where these properties are unimportant.
  - throwaway894345 7y ago
    It's not Nix's fault, but that doesn't make it cheaper to deal with. Whatever you want to say, `pip install psycopg2` just works because someone else already dealt with the packaging problem.
    - takeda 7y ago
      That's the cost of full reproducibility though. If Nix would not expect the postgresql package listed in dependencies and instead relied on what's currently installed on your system we would get to the starting point. Where something works on one person's computer but doesn't on another. Yes it is harder, but if you incorporate nix definitions in your source code (you need to pin nixpkgs though) then everyone will get exact same versions of the packages and your code works on everyone's computer.
      - throwaway894345 7y ago
        There are other ways to get enough reproducibility without the headaches of Nix, however, so that’s what we ended up doing. Reproducibility is nice, but if we need to be able to develop software quickly and for the time being, Nix is an impediment. As previously mentioned, this doesn’t have to be the case; it’s mostly an artifact of lack of documentation and a strong preference for the novel and unfamiliar over the familiar, but also for lack of escape hatches.
CJefferson 7y ago
I think you are too confident about Nix's usability. I maintain a few open source projects. I have made packages for Redhat, Ubuntu and Arch and updated one Nix package. I love the idea of Nix, but have quit trying to support it and have removed myself as a maintainer.

throwaway894345 7y ago

I don't think Nix works for a lot of organizations as a package manager. It works for a lot of individuals for a different use case (NixOS). If you're mostly installing existing packages from nixpkgs onto a NixOS box, that probably works very well--users don't need to know much about the expression language or the nature of their dependency tree. If you're using it as a development tool, users are going to need to intimately understand Nix, its expression language, and their entire dependency tree. Further, how well Nix works for your development use case largely depends on which language you're using, how well that language is supported by Nix (is it compiled or interpreted, does nixpkgs have good coverage for your language's ecosystem, etc). Notably, working with Haskell or Go in Nix is probably quite easy, while working with Python is quite hard. As an example, I recall trying to build a package for psycopg2 (it wasn't in nixpkgs at the time, and even if it were, for one reason or another we couldn't directly use many packages from nixpkgs), the most popular Python library for interacting with a Postgres database; however, that required me to write packages for a bunch of C libraries that I didn't understand at all, including fishing random header files out of the Postgres source code. No one in our organization including our Nix veterans could figure out how to build it correctly, and it ultimately caused us to move away from Nix (it was among the last straws). Besides, just because it didn't work for us doesn't imply that there's a problem with our personnel (by several industry key metrics, our devops capability is excellent), but rather that the effort required to implement Nix successfully was greater than the work required to use other tooling. We could use C++ instead of Python for our organization, but just because we don't doesn't imply that our organization is incompetent; rather that Python's tradeoffs are more appropriate for our problems. In effect, Nix creates more problems than it solves for us, which is unfortunate because the problems it solves are really important problems, and many of the problems it creates are utterly unnecessary (add docstrings, use a more familiar expression language--maybe Starlark [https://go.starlark.net https://go.starlark.net], provide and document 'escape hatches' so users can use system dependencies where it's prohibitively difficult to hermetically package things, etc).

beefee 7y ago
Nix has a way of exposing complex and low-quality build systems. Many pieces of the Python ecosystem fall into this category. For example, it wasn't Nix's fault that psycopg2 had a dependency on postgresql C header files, nor was it Nix's fault that the postgresql headers had to be rearranged for psycopg2's build to work. Nix basically reveals the full complexity of the package's actual build environment, and for some packages the work required to make a reliable build is overwhelming. Some easier to use systems have people doing this work for you, like the Debian project. Others rely on luck to supply dependencies. The thousands of Dockerfiles that run "apt-get update" are a great example of this. After using Nix for a while you start to reflexively shy away from software with low-quality build systems. Nix is not easy to use, but it's best of breed in terms of software supply chain auditability and malleability (anything in the system can be trivially modified or patched). If you can move to an "easy" system, that may be the appropriate trade-off for you, but it means you may be in a domain where these properties are unimportant.
- throwaway894345 7y ago
  It's not Nix's fault, but that doesn't make it cheaper to deal with. Whatever you want to say, `pip install psycopg2` just works because someone else already dealt with the packaging problem.
  - takeda 7y ago
    That's the cost of full reproducibility though. If Nix would not expect the postgresql package listed in dependencies and instead relied on what's currently installed on your system we would get to the starting point. Where something works on one person's computer but doesn't on another. Yes it is harder, but if you incorporate nix definitions in your source code (you need to pin nixpkgs though) then everyone will get exact same versions of the packages and your code works on everyone's computer.
    - throwaway894345 7y ago
      There are other ways to get enough reproducibility without the headaches of Nix, however, so that’s what we ended up doing. Reproducibility is nice, but if we need to be able to develop software quickly and for the time being, Nix is an impediment. As previously mentioned, this doesn’t have to be the case; it’s mostly an artifact of lack of documentation and a strong preference for the novel and unfamiliar over the familiar, but also for lack of escape hatches.

CJefferson 7y ago

I think you are too confident about Nix's usability. I maintain a few open source projects. I have made packages for Redhat, Ubuntu and Arch and updated one Nix package. I love the idea of Nix, but have quit trying to support it and have removed myself as a maintainer.