To be fair, that is not problematic at all and most definitely not what I think is the issue with Nix adoption/learning curve.

Personally, it's the fact that there are 57698 ways of doing something and when you're new to Nix you're swarmed with all the options and no clear way of choosing where to go. For example, the docs still use a shell.nix for a dev shell but most have moved to a flake-based method...

I always recommend starting with devenv.sh from the excellent Domen Kozar and then slowly migrating to bare Nix flakes once you're more accustomed.

> How is that supposed to read as a single expression in a pure functional language?

Well, in Haskell the following is technically single expression:

    do with pkgs; [ foo ];

(Eg using 'let {with = pure; pkgs = 1; foo = 2}' makes the above type check and compile.)

But extreme nerdery and nit-picking aside, I agree that the choice of syntax in nix unfortunate here.

Personally I think a bigger problem is the lack of discoverability of things in nixpkgs, which hits you as soon as you start writing anything remotely non-trivial. "Things" here means functions in 'lib', 'builtins', etc., as well as common idioms for solving various problems. I think this combines with the language's lack of types to make it hard to know what you can write, much less what you should write.

A language server with autocomplete and jump-to-definition would go a long way to making nix more accessible. As it stands, I generally have to clone nixpkgs locally and grep through it for definitions or examples of things related to what I'm doing, in order to figure out how they're used and to try to understand the idioms, even with 4 years of running NixOS under my belt and 3 years of using it for dev environments and packaging at work.

I agree the syntax isn't perfect, but in case you're actually confused there's really only 3 places where semicolons go, and I would argue that two of the places make a lot of sense— as a terminator for attribute sets, and a terminator for `let` declarations.

Unfortunately it is also used with the somewhat confusing `with` operator which I personally avoid using. For those of you who aren't familiar, it works similar to the now deprecated javascript `with` statement where `with foo; bar` will resolve to `bar` if it is in scope, otherwise it will resolve to `foo.bar`.

I actually prefer `with`, since it fits better with the language:

- It uses `;` in the same way as `assert`, whereas `let` uses a whole other keyword `in`.

- It uses attrsets as reified/first-class environments, unlike `let`, which lets us do `with foo; ...`.

- Since it uses attrsets, we can use their existing functionality, like `rec` and `inherit`; rather than duplicating it.

I've been using Nix for over a decade (it's even on my phone), and I've never once written a `let`.

(I agree that the shadowing behaviour is annoying, and we're stuck with it for back-compat; but that's only an issue for function arguments and let, and I don't use the latter)

Interesting, are you saying that instead of reaching for `let foo = bar; in expr` you usually use something like `with { foo = bar; }; expr`?

> Since it uses attrsets, we can use their existing functionality, like `rec` and `inherit`; rather than duplicating it.

`let` supports `inherit`, and is always `rec`. Or is that your point, that it is needlessly duplicated functionality?

Yes and yes :)

Functions with default arguments are also very useful; especially since `nix-build` will call them automatically. Those are "always `rec`" too, which (a) makes them convenient for intermediate values, and (b) provides a fine-grained way to override some functionality. I used this to great effect at a previous employer, for wrangling a bunch of inter-dependent Maven projects; but here's a made-up example:

    {
      # Main project directory. Override to build a different version.
      src ? pkgs.lib.cleanSource ./.
    
      # Take these files from src by default, but allow them to be overridden
    , config ? "${src}/config.json"
    , script ? "${src}/script.sh"
    
      # A couple of dependencies
    , jq ? pkgs.jq
    , pythonEnv ? python3.withPackages choosePyPackages
    , extraDeps ? [] # Not necessary, but might be useful for callers
    
      # Python is tricky, since it bakes all of its libraries into one derivation.
      # Exposing intermediate parts lets us override just the interpreter, or just
      # the set of packages, or both.
    , python3 ? pkgs.python3
    , choosePyPackages ? (p: pythonDeps p ++ extraPythonDeps p)
    , pythonDeps ? (p: [ p.numpy ])
    , extraPythonDeps ? (p: [])  # Again, not necessary but maybe useful
    
      # Most of our dependencies will ultimately come from Nixpkgs, so we should pin
      # a known-good revision. However, we should also allow that to be overridden;
      # e.g. if we want to pass the same revision into a bunch of projects, for
      # consistency.
    , pkgs ? import ./pinned-nixpkgs.nix
    }:
    # Some arbitrary result
    pkgs.writeShellApplication {
      name = "foo";
      runtimeInputs = [ jq pythonEnv ] ++ extraDeps;
      runtimeEnv = { inherit config; };
      text = builtins.readFile script;
    }

> now deprecated javascript `with` statement where `with foo; bar` will resolve to `bar` if it is in scope, otherwise it will resolve to `foo.bar`.

Technically, in JavaScript it's `with (foo) bar`.

Source: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...