> I use NixOS. And NixOS isn’t a problem — it’s a solution.
> The past ten years saw a big shift in how we are writing software: baseline level of “interactive static analysis"
While I am making no judgement on what is 'better', the author's choices have impacts, and sometimes not all projects can work within the costs imposed by static analysis.
For example, remember that Rice's theorm generalizes HALT, and that you always have to under or overestimate with SA. Either introducing over constraints or missing things.
It is horses for courses, sometimes the added friction is worth it, other times it is damaging.
The question of if Nix is a problem is a context specific question.
Be careful about making default assumptions and patterns more than what they are, no matter how sensible they are as a default.
> The past ten years saw a big shift in how we are writing software: baseline level of “interactive static analysis"
While I am making no judgement on what is 'better', the author's choices have impacts, and sometimes not all projects can work within the costs imposed by static analysis.
For example, remember that Rice's theorm generalizes HALT, and that you always have to under or overestimate with SA. Either introducing over constraints or missing things.
It is horses for courses, sometimes the added friction is worth it, other times it is damaging.
The question of if Nix is a problem is a context specific question.
Be careful about making default assumptions and patterns more than what they are, no matter how sensible they are as a default.