Post #1640520

2026-02-12 07:55 UTC

@purrperl @ar @abmurrow @rperezrosario I'm not sure how cleanly you could do it, considering a number of factors like the entirety of nixpkgs also being implemented as nix, and it being a functional language, which I'm relatively sure (I've never used them) Ruby & Pearl are not, which is going to cause a lot of issues on it's own. That said, don't let me stop you, I do not know a lot about this problem domain. But bare minimum I think you'd end up having to implement the nix language as well as your own DSL. Or have your code transpile to Nix maybe?

Replies (2)

@purrperl@noc.social 2026-02-12 07:57

@krutonium @ar @abmurrow @rperezrosario Perl & Ruby are both multi-paradigm languages, and the functional programming paradigm is well-supported by both, in addition to OOP.

Open ##1640521
@ar@is-a.cat 2026-02-12 08:04

@krutonium @purrperl @abmurrow @rperezrosario ruby can convincingly pretend to be a functional language. Though I wouldn't want to start a new project in a language that features DHH on the front page. Perl is something that would put me off from using Nix. I'm happy that some critical NixOS components are getting rewritten from perl into rust/python. I've been using Linux/unix-like systems for 25 years now, and perl did not seem to improve that much in all this time. It gained… function signatures. And for a while it had a "switch/case"-like syntax construct, but that has been deprecated again, apparently.

Open ##1640523