3 ms·

I think the answer is yes and no. As a language (and as far as tooling is involved), I think Nickel is entirely suitable to fill the same role as the Nix langua

I think the answer is yes and no. As a language (and as far as tooling is involved), I think Nickel is entirely suitable to fill the same role as the Nix language (maybe at the same scale as Nixpkgs the performance will need some work, but that's it). Unfortunately, being a Nix replacement involves much more than just being a good language for configuration. It requires to interact tightly with all the existing Nix code that has been produced (basically, Nixpkgs). This is the hard part, which isn't there yet. Some design document that was started a long time ago can give you more details: https://github.com/tweag/nickel/pull/693 https://github.com/tweag/nickel/pull/693. The best current take is organist (https://github.com/nickel-lang/organist https://github.com/nickel-lang/organist), which is much more limited in scope (basically development shell), but has some form of interaction with Nix and Nixpkgs, albeit limited. I think the recent development around json-schema-to-nickel and the availability of JSON schemas for NixOS modules (as mentioned at the end of the post) might make it realistic to write boring NixOS configs in Nickel (and have the nice in-LSP validation), but we haven't had the time to try this combination yet.

TheDong 2y ago
nickel's performance definitely will need some work. It's several orders of magnitude slower than nix for even simple tasks: $ time nix eval --expr "builtins.foldl' (l: r: if l > r then l else r) 0 (builtins.genList (x: x) 5000000)" 0.839s memory: 627 MB $ time nickel eval <<<"std.array.fold_left std.number.max 0 (std.array.generate (fun x => x) 5000000)" 1:20.06s memory: 10540 MB I know we don't actually need to deal with 5 million element lists in practical code, but this is also not nickel's most pathological case, and it's easy to write fairly reasonable and normal code which is prohibitively slow. I rewrote some code I had laying around from nix, where it evaluated in a mere 3s or so (using perhaps a GiB of memory), into nickel. At first the nickel version crashed after using all my memory, but with hours of optimization, I managed to get it to run in just under 2 hours with only 60GiB of memory usage.
- yagrouze 2y ago
  That looks bad indeed. I must say that contracts, while very nice for error reporting and all, also brings additional challenge related to performance (cf https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2914770.2837630 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2914770.2837630). Our stance is that it's a reasonable trade off for configuration, but the cost would be unacceptable in a general purpose language. Also, it's true that we've focused on language design and tooling before performance, and then working our way when users report unacceptable perfs on their concrete use-case. There's been some improvement recently-ish. For example, with the latest Nickel, I get (by inlining `max` to mimic the Nix version): $ time nix eval --expr "builtins.foldl' (l: r: if l > r then l else r) 0 (builtins.genList (x: x) 5000000)" 0,74s user 0,11s $ time nickel eval <<<"std.array.fold_left (fun x y => if x > y then x else y) 0 (std.array.generate (fun x => x) 5000000)" 36,63s user 3,40s Nothing to be too excited about, though. Although it doesn't make it unusable in small and medium-sized projects (we have users with 120kLoc of Nickel - with they'd definitively like to make it faster, it's still usable), I agree that performance is a big area of improvement, to say the least.
- yagrouze 2y ago
  (also, it seems `foldl'` is an ad-hoc builtin operation in Nix, probably for perf reasons, so the comparison isn't entirely fair either)

TheDong 2y ago

nickel's performance definitely will need some work. It's several orders of magnitude slower than nix for even simple tasks: $ time nix eval --expr "builtins.foldl' (l: r: if l > r then l else r) 0 (builtins.genList (x: x) 5000000)" 0.839s memory: 627 MB $ time nickel eval <<<"std.array.fold_left std.number.max 0 (std.array.generate (fun x => x) 5000000)" 1:20.06s memory: 10540 MB I know we don't actually need to deal with 5 million element lists in practical code, but this is also not nickel's most pathological case, and it's easy to write fairly reasonable and normal code which is prohibitively slow. I rewrote some code I had laying around from nix, where it evaluated in a mere 3s or so (using perhaps a GiB of memory), into nickel. At first the nickel version crashed after using all my memory, but with hours of optimization, I managed to get it to run in just under 2 hours with only 60GiB of memory usage.

yagrouze 2y ago
That looks bad indeed. I must say that contracts, while very nice for error reporting and all, also brings additional challenge related to performance (cf https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2914770.2837630 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2914770.2837630). Our stance is that it's a reasonable trade off for configuration, but the cost would be unacceptable in a general purpose language. Also, it's true that we've focused on language design and tooling before performance, and then working our way when users report unacceptable perfs on their concrete use-case. There's been some improvement recently-ish. For example, with the latest Nickel, I get (by inlining `max` to mimic the Nix version): $ time nix eval --expr "builtins.foldl' (l: r: if l > r then l else r) 0 (builtins.genList (x: x) 5000000)" 0,74s user 0,11s $ time nickel eval <<<"std.array.fold_left (fun x y => if x > y then x else y) 0 (std.array.generate (fun x => x) 5000000)" 36,63s user 3,40s Nothing to be too excited about, though. Although it doesn't make it unusable in small and medium-sized projects (we have users with 120kLoc of Nickel - with they'd definitively like to make it faster, it's still usable), I agree that performance is a big area of improvement, to say the least.
yagrouze 2y ago
(also, it seems `foldl'` is an ad-hoc builtin operation in Nix, probably for perf reasons, so the comparison isn't entirely fair either)