What solution wouldn't require its own specification + quirks? Whether its a Dockerfile or nix package I don't see the difference besides people tend to be familiar with only 1 of the many options.

Im not comparing whether Dockerfiles or buildpacks or nix packages are more ergonomic than one another but i do think your comment is...misguided. From what I have heard Nix is pretty wonderful to use and simplifies the problem - it just requires you learn about Nix a bit which i think is a fair trade-off for the benefits it supposedly provides

Anyone can build their first Dockerfile and deploy it for Node.js or similar in like 5 minutes. The tricks that make images smaller later use the same concepts and syntax. There is a reason it took over the world so quickly.

Nix ... I have so far spent about 10 hours learning it to manage my machine. I have forgotten about 98% of it and abandoned the project. You feel like you're sitting in the middle of a spider web, and you can sense the whole system at once. Literally none of your prior knowledge of how to use a computer will help you. None of your existing build tool CLI can be used. Every package manager needs a nix-ifier, like node2nix. Everything you see in a nix file will have to be googled, searched in the documentation, searched in GitHub repos for some kind of example. Nix has rebuilt the world from scratch.

If you're trying to make the next big thing, try to make it leverage people's existing knowledge. One truly excellent example is `compile_commands.json`. It does a very similar thing to Docker, where it extracts information from your existing build process, without actually changing the build process. The problem statement was that people wanted LSP (and predecessors) implementations to have access to a list of input files to a C/C++ compiler, but they didn't want to abandon Make and CMake etc. So they basically made a structured log of all the CC invocations, and a wrapper around CC that would parse the arguments and write to the log in JSON format. These days you get it for free with CMake[0]. You can use it with nearly every C/C++ build system on earth with a single CC=... argument to make.

[0]: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/variable/CMAKE_EXPORT_CO...

Your compile_commands.json example is essentially what tools like node2nix produce. For saner build systems, e.g. cmake and meson, simply including the build tool package in `nativeBuildInputs` along with dependent packages in `buildInputs` suffices to build 90% of C/C++ packages with Nix, with the remaining 10% being Qt (I jest).

The real killer app for Nix is in testing now, and that's the "flakes" feature. Lots of this stuff will get way easier to use when you can throw "github:owner/repo" in an `inputs` set and get a working Nix builder for your project without needing to read through nixpkgs. I hope you give it a try again sometime, as it has changed my perspective on how software should be built, distributed, trusted, and deployed.

Nix is still trying to be a thing that replaces other build tools. The generated nix file is a recipe for doing what “npm publish” does when it builds a tgz. Every single language has a different way of doing this, and will require its own *2nix to be maintained alongside changes to eg package.json, Cargo.toml, Package.swift. The 2nix bit is the hard part; every package manager has to be re-implemented.

Docker does not have this problem at all. Every build tool on earth works with it, with zero configuration.

Compile_commands.json may have similar output to node2nix etc, but it infects nothing, replaces nothing. It works with all the different makefile alternatives with no additional effort. The closest similarity is with Docker: Docker builders intercept at the file system layer, covering every build system ever; compile_commands at the standard GCC-compatible shell arguments layer, covering ~all C build systems and compilers. Nix does not intercept anywhere, it asks you to use a new tool to do everything from scratch in a Nix-compatible way, covering no build systems.

That’s not to say it isn’t great when you have already built a Nixified package manager replacement for your specific language ecosystem. But it’s not going to take over the world like Docker and compile_commands did. Imploring people to give it a shot is the only way, unfortunately. I will remain open to it, especially if someone can figure out a force-multiplier for these 2nix implementations.

> Nix is still trying to be a thing that replaces other build tools.

Not true! Nix wraps other build tools, and provides hermetic and reproducible environments to those tools. If the tools exposed a way to get the URL and SHA256 hash of every dependency it downloads from the Internet, then the "infection" doesn't need to happen, as you would simply supply those hashes to Nix, which in turn will happily allow them to be downloaded in the sandbox by the tool. That tools like node2nix exist speaks to the walled garden created by these tools and ecosystems, because they do not (easily) expose dependencies to their environment, and/or they do not (easily) accept dependencies from their environment.

This would absolutely be a problem with Docker as well, if you added the same requirements that Nix enforces in its sandbox, because otherwise you are allowing Docker to fetch dependencies by URL without specifying their contents.

> If the tools exposed a way to get the URL and SHA256 hash of every dependency it downloads from the Internet, then the "infection" doesn't need to happen

Yes. Good start. If you can make it so that exposing this information to Nix is easy enough that e.g. the NPM team does not need a PhD in Dhall to write it to a file, then Nix will be a much more solid proposition. That data alone isn't enough, but that + a DAG of what NPM will do to the downloaded tgzs is much closer. It's also enough for cargo. And many other languages. Dhall is cool to write by hand but, back to my original example, compile_commands.json could be written by a monkey. It needs to be that easy. It needs to be as easy as printing GraphViz DOT to stderr. Then and probably only then will Nix support start getting upstreamed.

Dhall is probably Nix's biggest liability at the moment; they sought to make a single language, with a rapidly changing API, for configuring your computer (by hand) as for making compilers reproducible. Compiler output! In an essentially esoteric configuration/programming language, which takes a lot of effort to port to a new ecosystem! No. Use JSON. Ideally you will never have to actually write Nix, the same way humans have never had to write compile_commands.json by hand, and the way nobody has ever had to construct a Docker image by hand out of individual tar files.

Meanwhile, NixOS forces me to configure systemd units by writing Nix, not by writing systemd unit files.

Re force multipliers, I think you could do much worse than an HTTP proxy! Many package managers support folks behind corporate firewalls, and you can then support any thing that fetches code from anywhere else. Give it a specific Node.js version and a proxy, run npm install, log all the network requests into a nix file. Biggest issue is TLS probably.

You can’t really leverage what is fundamentally broken. To live up to Nix’s claims it has to heavily patch software. But this is a self-fulfilling thing, once it caters to enough people, other tools will natively support nix.

You're right that Docker is similar to Nix, at least in the sense they both seem to be trying to work around problems with the Linux packaging and library ecosystem by piling more of their own complexity on top. I suspect the comment you replied to wants to see the actual underlying problem solved.

To use an example from another community, no amount of performance improvements to NPM will ever make it a good idea to depend on hundreds of one-liner "is number odd" or "left pad" packages. Papering over the problem with yet more technology only ossifies it, making it harder to solve for real.