| 8 Mar 2025 |
 raitobezarius | (I mean, saying this out loud makes me realize that well, making it cacheable trivial and hash consing all the exact same set of inputs used is a way to do it) | 18:05:21 |
 WeetHet | Yeah my system evaluation with flakes vs without has a sizable (a second or so) difference in evaluation times | 18:05:32 |
| WeetHet | * | 18:05:47 |
 emily | are we just talking about installable eval caching? | 18:05:48 |
| emily | the thing where foo#bar gets an evaluation result cachd? | 18:05:56 |
| raitobezarius | yeah, I'm mostly talking about this | 18:05:57 |
| emily | * the thing where foo#bar gets an evaluation result cached? | 18:05:58 |
| emily | because if so, WeetHet, I'm not sure you're measuring something that worthwhile for system configs | 18:06:13 |
| emily | a single byte change in the flake will throw away the entire eval cache | 18:06:22 |
| raitobezarius | I agree this is a cheat but this is user visible | 18:06:23 |
| emily | right. well it matters for nixpkgs# for sure | 18:06:30 |
| emily | for system configs … meh | 18:06:37 |
| WeetHet | I don't know why this happened, really. It's not even evaluation catching probably since --impure evaluation is still faster | 18:07:20 |
| WeetHet | * | 18:07:30 |
| WeetHet | * | 18:08:03 |
| WeetHet | There's also an issue of me having nixpkgs being pinned to a github rev in the flake registry which works fine with flakes but causes a noticeable delay with a message "fetching github<...>" when using nix-shell even if it's already fetched | 18:12:41 |
| WeetHet | It doesn't actually fetch it, but for some reason takes an unreasonable time checking for it ig | 18:13:09 |
| WeetHet | Overall, all this just makes non-flake UX just miserable enough for me to use flakes even though I really don't want to | 18:14:13 |
| WeetHet | I still sometimes catch myself running nix-shell -p npins --command "npins init" instead of nix flake init and have to remove npins directory | 18:15:33 |
| WeetHet | * | 18:16:03 |
| emily | you could use nix(1) without flakes. dunno if that would solve the nix-shell thing. probably not. | 18:17:01 |
| WeetHet | nix-command is too tightly coupled with flakes for me, can you even use nix shell without them? | 18:18:03 |
| WeetHet | Same for nix run | 18:18:12 |
| WeetHet | I sometimes feel like the best course of action for me would be to fork nix 2.3 and work on improving it instead | 18:19:23 |
| emily | yes, they support -f | 18:19:37 |
| WeetHet | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
yes, they support -f It implies impure | 18:19:49 |
| emily | --expr then. (btw, maybe we should move this out of #nix-dev:nixos.org) | 18:20:14 |
| WeetHet | Where | 18:20:21 |
| emily | #users:nixos.org? | 18:20:28 |
| emily | fwiw Nix 2.3 is also buggy. it just has different bugs. | 18:20:32 |
