this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
26 points (93.3% liked)

Linux

5232 readers
127 users here now

A community for everything relating to the linux operating system

Also check out !linux_memes@programming.dev

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] murtaza64@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Nix being an expression based functional language, it doesn't really make sense to have something like let x=y; since this looks to most people like a statement (i.e. a line of code that gets executed as part of a sequence). This doesn't exist in nix—instead you have expressions that get lazily evaluated, possibly out of order compared to what you'd expect. let x=y in makes it more clear that the variable binding you're doing is only in scope for the current expression, which reads something like "let x refer to y in x + 3"

The function definition syntax is unusual but definitely not unintuitive imo. It captures the simplicity of the function semantics of nix—a function is just a mapping/transformation from one value (or set of values) to another. I don't think it's too much overhead to learn that they use : to mean this instead of =>

In terms of why they picked this syntax, it follows the traditions of other functional languages such as the ML family, Haskell etc.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago

Nix being an expression based functional language, it doesn’t really make sense to have something like let x=y; since this looks to most people like a statement

I know of several languages that just have let x=y; <expr> as an expression. It works fine, it's just more obvious syntax.

The fact that it looks like a statement is kind of the point.

it follows the traditions of other functional languages such as the ML

OCaml at least supports both forms. They didn't have to pick the weird one.