4 ms·

Could you say more what's foreign?

johnnylambada 5y ago
Its probably that I grew up with c like languages. When I try to read something like { pkgs }: { deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; } It’s meaningless to my brain.
- wereHamster 5y ago
  Translating to modern JavaScript in three easy steps: { pkgs }: { deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; } ({ pkgs }): { deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; } ({ pkgs }) => { deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; } ({ pkgs }) => ({ deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; })
  - johnnylambada 5y ago
    Helpful. There once was a command line tool that would turn a C declaration into english (like cdecl.org) I’d love to see something like that for the nix language (and kotlin too since I’m dreaming)
  - TheDong 5y ago
    Your translation is incomplete. You're ending with: > ({ pkgs }) => ({ deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; }) But the syntax for declaring objects in javascript differs. It would be: ({ pkgs }) => ({ deps: pkgs.cowsay }) The fact that '{ x = 1; }' is declaring an object, identical to '{x: 1}' in javascript, is important. It's also worth pointing out that, while '{ pkgs }:' is idiomatic nix, idiomatically in javascript you'd probably just take multiple arguments (so '(pkgs) =>', not '({ pkgs }) =>' in js). The reason nix uses an object there is because a nix function only takes one argument, so there's a fairly common convention to make that argument an attr in order to simulate multiple arguments. That convention doesn't exist in quite the same way in js.
    - ronenlh 5y ago
      You forgot the array ({ pkgs }) => ({ deps: [pkgs.cowsay] }) I also translate all nix to JavaScript in my brain
- bspammer 5y ago
  To put it in a C context: it’s a function with a single argument ‘pkgs’, which returns a struct with one field ‘deps’, which is an array of package structs.
  - IshKebab 5y ago
    So why did they chose such unconventional syntax? Just for the hell of it? There doesn't seem to be any advantage and it definitely puts a lot of people off.
    - bspammer 5y ago
      The syntax is not so unconventional compared to, say, modern javascript: ({ pkgs }) => { deps: [ pkgs.cowsay ] } or python: lambda pkgs: { deps: [pkgs.cowsay] } I guess really the question is why create a new language rather than using an existing one? The language needed to be functional, lazy, and good at managing packages, and not much else. I guess they felt that no existing language fits the bill (Haskell does I guess but it's got a lot of baggage). I can't claim to know much about its history.

Its probably that I grew up with c like languages. When I try to read something like { pkgs }: { deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; } It’s meaningless to my brain.

wereHamster 5y ago
Translating to modern JavaScript in three easy steps: { pkgs }: { deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; } ({ pkgs }): { deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; } ({ pkgs }) => { deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; } ({ pkgs }) => ({ deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; })
- johnnylambada 5y ago
  Helpful. There once was a command line tool that would turn a C declaration into english (like cdecl.org) I’d love to see something like that for the nix language (and kotlin too since I’m dreaming)
- TheDong 5y ago
  Your translation is incomplete. You're ending with: > ({ pkgs }) => ({ deps = [ pkgs.cowsay ]; }) But the syntax for declaring objects in javascript differs. It would be: ({ pkgs }) => ({ deps: pkgs.cowsay }) The fact that '{ x = 1; }' is declaring an object, identical to '{x: 1}' in javascript, is important. It's also worth pointing out that, while '{ pkgs }:' is idiomatic nix, idiomatically in javascript you'd probably just take multiple arguments (so '(pkgs) =>', not '({ pkgs }) =>' in js). The reason nix uses an object there is because a nix function only takes one argument, so there's a fairly common convention to make that argument an attr in order to simulate multiple arguments. That convention doesn't exist in quite the same way in js.
  - ronenlh 5y ago
    You forgot the array ({ pkgs }) => ({ deps: [pkgs.cowsay] }) I also translate all nix to JavaScript in my brain
bspammer 5y ago
To put it in a C context: it’s a function with a single argument ‘pkgs’, which returns a struct with one field ‘deps’, which is an array of package structs.
- IshKebab 5y ago
  So why did they chose such unconventional syntax? Just for the hell of it? There doesn't seem to be any advantage and it definitely puts a lot of people off.
  - bspammer 5y ago
    The syntax is not so unconventional compared to, say, modern javascript: ({ pkgs }) => { deps: [ pkgs.cowsay ] } or python: lambda pkgs: { deps: [pkgs.cowsay] } I guess really the question is why create a new language rather than using an existing one? The language needed to be functional, lazy, and good at managing packages, and not much else. I guess they felt that no existing language fits the bill (Haskell does I guess but it's got a lot of baggage). I can't claim to know much about its history.