>mar. 30 juin 2026 at 12:00, Arun Isaac <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Guix, > > I spoke about Guix at STEP-UP RSLondon 2026, a conference for research > software engineers (RSEs) primarily based at UK universities. Abstract here: > https://step-up.ac.uk/events/step-up-2026/abstracts/#software4 My > thinking was to advocate for Guix in the primarily conda+pip dominated > world of the RSE. I got some feedback that I'd like to share. > > I heard from someone who said that they tried Guix and were very > frustrated with all the scheme file editing (manifest files, package > definitions, etc.) that they had to do. They came from a python world > where they are used to adding dependencies from the CLI—like `uv add > packagename`. They felt that the CLI is the direction modern tooling has > gone, and that's what they'd prefer. Guix cli tools are rather complete, IMMO. For example: guix shell -CW emacs-magit bash -- sh -c 'guix package -p $GUIX_ENVIRONMENT/ --export-manifest' would return a manifest with inputs. > Now, I know we pride ourselves on the expressive power of our scheme > files. And, I absolutely prefer writing them. But, perhaps there's a > case for providing a more declarative config—something like TOML—for > simpler and common use cases. Would WISP¹ be an option ? This is even closer to Python world. -- Cayetano Santos [1] https://hg.sr.ht/~arnebab/wisp
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
