It’s great at being a declarative configuration language though…. Even if it’s ugly.

Hell even if it were a perfectly designed language (it isn't) I still would be put off by it because I don't really want to be a professional full-time packaging engineer.

I think Bazel got a lot right by using a subset of Python. Basically nothing to learn language-wise.

Oh you mean the things that look like operator, behave like operators, and are commonly referred to as operators by Haskell programmers - even in the Haskell Wiki? Those operators?

https://tech.fpcomplete.com/haskell/tutorial/operators/

https://github.com/haskellcats/haskell-operators

https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Infix_operator

What exactly do you think an operator is?

You're a prime example of a person who reads a page on the Internet and takes it at a face value without understanding the meaning and the context behind the words:

> One of the most common operators, and source of initial confusion, is the $ operator. All this does is apply a function.

Did you miss the part that says "All this does is apply a function"?

Here's how you define (+) among other things: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/ghc-internal-9.1201.0/do...

    instance Num Int where
        I# x + I# y = I# (x +# y)

The (+) in `I# x + I# y =` is a function definition in infix form. That's the same form you can use for any other infix function if you wish so:

    ghci> a `iAmHelping` b = a b + b 

    ghci> :t iAmHelping
    iAmHelping :: Num a => (a -> a) -> a -> a 

Let me see your regular operators do the following, then we talk:

     plus = (+)
     a  = (2 +)
     c  = (2 `plus`)
     c' = plus 2
     d  = (+) 2
     d' = (+ 2)
     e  = 2 `plus` 2
     f  = 2 + 2

Did you miss the part where it's called an "operator"? Your claim was that Haskell doesn't have operators.

I guess you're a prime example of someone that can't remember what the debate is.

> I guess you're a prime example of someone that can't remember what the debate is.

There's no debate, you asked me why I said that you weren't solid. And I show you that you don't have a solid foundation in the tool that you opine on. You refuse the ground truth presented to you in code, and you opt to someone's verbal description of an infix function being an operator. You use a second-hand opinion to form your mental model about a thing, and then you opine on the thing with that invalid foundation that was made for you (by some believing individuals claiming it's the best approach), so that you don't feel intimidated from the get-go. No wonder you don't know why there's no distinctive difference between functions and reduced values in syntax. And that's not only Haskell, you also don't know Nix enough to understand how silly your take is about a subset of Python being better than a specialized language for the problem of cascading graph changes in build systems.

Search for Haskell.

Good to know you didn't have any real reasons to think I'm not a solid programmer anyway. Bye.

> Good to know you didn't have any real reasons to think I'm not a solid programmer anyway.

I'd easily demonstrate more reasons why you're not solid, I will probably do it in the future if I see more of your silly opinions on the things you don't know. But thankfully, in the context of Haskell the comments have already shown your true lack of any substantial knowledge. I hope you will at least obstain from commenting on Haskell and Nix in the future, don't embarrass yourself.

For starters, you compared Nix the ecosystem to Starlark, perhaps the smallest aspect of Bazel. But Bazel (the ecosystem) has a horrendous documentation problem as well.

I grant that "Nix" is a very overloaded term, but it seems like you don't know which part of Nix you are even referring to. "Somewhere... in all of Nix" is not something that makes any sense.

I fully admit that Nix has a steep learning curve. Very steep. But I don't think you know enough to give a thoughtful critique.

No I compared the Nix language to Starlark.

> but it seems like you don't know which part of Nix you are even referring to.

Incorrect. I was referring to the Nix language, as was hamandcheese. He literally said it explicitly. I don't know how you could miss that.

> I fully admit that Nix has a steep learning curve. Very steep. But I don't think you know enough to give a thoughtful critique.

You're proving my point here. The very steep learning curve and "you need to be an expert before you can use it" aspects of Nix (both the language and the package manager) are exactly the problem.

Let me put it another way. Imagine I gave you a vacuum cleaner, and you tried to turn it on but it had a very complicated startup sequence so you needed to read the manual... but the manual was written in Egyptian hieroglyphics. You take it back to the shop and they say "nah this is a perfectly good vacuum cleaner. Sure it has a steep learning curve but you just need to spend some time learning it before you can criticise it".

That's obviously stupid right? For most people package management is like vacuum cleaning. It's a necessary task they want to think about as little as possible.

Nix is written by a vacuum cleaner collection & restoration club, who assume that everyone in the world is as obsessively into vacuum cleaners as them.

I am hamandcheese. I replied to your comment. You didn't describe a single aspect of Nix-the-language. You wrote this:

> What does setting `foo: true` do? You can't go-to-definition on it. You can only hope it is well documented (it isn't) or try to find the place that reads that key ... somewhere... in all of Nix... Good luck.

It's appears (despite the wrong syntax, another clue that you are not particularly well informed) that you are referring to a NixOS module option. Or maybe a Home Manager module option. Either way, not a language feature.

Ah yes :D

> Either way, not a language feature.

The language feature I am talking about is that it is completely declarative. You can argue semantics if you want but Nix chose to use a completely declarative language for configuration and that was IMO a bad decision.

I do not hire anything who does not get outside of their comfort zone or who is intimated by syntax they haven't seen. If a programmer rejects Haskell or OCaml by giving me a good critique of say, Hindley Milner style type systems†, that's a good programmer I'm willing to hire even though I don't necessarily agree.

†: I've been asked exactly this question during an interview: to critique HM style type systems. As a candidate I felt this style of questions gave me a far better way to display my knowledge and experience than Leetcode style questions.

Today's Freudian slip award goes to...

The way your comment reads, it's like you're saying you'll never hire someone who rejects speaking to you in Esperanto unless they offer a good critique of its grammar.