3 ms·
Could you share what you mean by that, or how you got that impression? I've used Nix once, four years ago, and I didn't really like it[1]. I've never used it
by tome 6y ago
Could you share what you mean by that, or how you got that impression?
I've used Nix once, four years ago, and I didn't really like it[1]. I've never used it since. The only thing in the Haskell ecosystem that requires Nix is GHCJS, I think, which is bleeding edge technology that few use. Cabal's new package management style is called "Nix-style" but otherwise has no connection to Nix whatsoever (I wish they'd use a different name actually -- "persistent style", "immutable style"?).
[1] For various reasons to do with user experience. I'm sure it's improved a lot by now.
- foldr 6y agoI guess my experience is colored by my last gig as a Haskell developer, where our entire development and deployment process was nix-based. I understand that it is possible to use Haskell without using Nix. However, I do get the impression that a significant section of the community see nix as the best way to manage Haskell dependencies. The (insanely confusing) naming of the new cabal features seems to support that.
- tome 6y agoWell, I don't know the details of your personal experience, but I'm confident to declare that the vast majority of the Haskell community has never used Nix and has no particular intention to.
- exdsq 6y agoNix has managed to permeate almost every repo I work with. Only a minute ago I realised a Make file had had nix-shell stuff added to stack build. There is no escape, only Nix.
- Vosporos 6y agoThat's interesting! At work we use stack and our own LTSs to manage our dependencies. Nix is only used for reproducible CI.