Writing the packaging expressions should not be harder than writing the program, for the average developer. The average developer doesn't know FP, at this point. Nix needs:
1. Approachability for those not indoctrinated in lazy, declarative, functional programming (i.e. Haskell); nope, Nix Pills are not sufficient for the average dev
2. Editor tooling to help guide the writing of expressions (just as anyone learning C# or Rust can use LSP); a better type system for Nix would help here
3. Better documentation for practical things like "Using Nix to manage the dependencies and package a C++ program using Meson", rather than having people piece this together from a bunch of disparate docs
4. A much better CLI UX than `nix-env -qa` and the like (this is ongoing and experimental, but even that broke recently, causing lots of confusion; now it requires `nix --extra-experimental-features nix-command --extra-experimental-features flakes search nixpkgs`)
5. To seriously answer the question: is the Nix language required for the Nix packaging system to exist? Laziness is required, to some degree, but can the next iteration provide an on-ramp which doesn't involve learning a new lang and paradigm? Guix folks sure think so.
I feel like Nix folks have been focused so long on solving the tough problems of declarative, deterministic packaging that they haven't been able to focus on the UX. I also feel like folks for whom Haskell is comfortable may not realize just how absurd it feels to everyone else. Perhaps like the early days of Git.
I do really hope Nix succeeds in this, though; I've been using it, or it's been using me, for several years. [1] and [2] for more info.
[1]: https://blog.jeaye.com/2015/11/24/nixos/
[2]: https://blog.jeaye.com/2017/07/30/nixos-revisited/
1. Approachability for those not indoctrinated in lazy, declarative, functional programming (i.e. Haskell); nope, Nix Pills are not sufficient for the average dev
2. Editor tooling to help guide the writing of expressions (just as anyone learning C# or Rust can use LSP); a better type system for Nix would help here
3. Better documentation for practical things like "Using Nix to manage the dependencies and package a C++ program using Meson", rather than having people piece this together from a bunch of disparate docs
4. A much better CLI UX than `nix-env -qa` and the like (this is ongoing and experimental, but even that broke recently, causing lots of confusion; now it requires `nix --extra-experimental-features nix-command --extra-experimental-features flakes search nixpkgs`)
5. To seriously answer the question: is the Nix language required for the Nix packaging system to exist? Laziness is required, to some degree, but can the next iteration provide an on-ramp which doesn't involve learning a new lang and paradigm? Guix folks sure think so.
I feel like Nix folks have been focused so long on solving the tough problems of declarative, deterministic packaging that they haven't been able to focus on the UX. I also feel like folks for whom Haskell is comfortable may not realize just how absurd it feels to everyone else. Perhaps like the early days of Git.
I do really hope Nix succeeds in this, though; I've been using it, or it's been using me, for several years. [1] and [2] for more info.
[1]: https://blog.jeaye.com/2015/11/24/nixos/
[2]: https://blog.jeaye.com/2017/07/30/nixos-revisited/