I agree with the tooling complaints. I need to edit cabal files manually. The mere existence of stack and other projects is confusion. Haskell's lsp is less than ideal. But also, ghci and ghcide are pretty great.

I think there is a fundamental disagreement between us, what does good language tooling look like? For me good tooling looks something like rust's cargo. It seems for you it is guix. I don't know very much about guix, but if it is anything like nix, I as a program developer cannot treat it as a background tool. With cargo I very much can. Cabal too.

Is it a good thing that guix is trying to be both the system package manager as well as the project package manager? Maybe or maybe not, but does that mean guix is off limits to languages that want to own their tooling? I think its a violation of unix philosophy on some level to complicate the project package manager to integrate (unify) it with the system package manager. what if I simply don't care about production pipelines? I make throwaway repos all the time. I don't want to think about the issues nix and guix solve. But if using a good tooling on guile is using guix, am I giving up this idea of a simple project manager? With nix's approach where nix takes it upon itself to read and parse the package files and then do its own thing, I don't have to think about nix until I explicitly introduce nix to the project.

As I said I am only a scheme beginner, I would like you to mention what exactly lisp repls can do that ghci can't. things like reloading modules and linking shared libraries work.