You're underrepresenting the complications of NixOS and overrepresenting the complications of Arch. For example, to install Steam I would run sudo pacman -Syu steam. On a typical Arch setup that's all that's needed.

Another example is how to install Steam. In Arch, the wiki must tell you all the manual steps required to enable multilib, install the steam package, install 32bit dependencies, yada yada.

And that's why the Arch wiki is so great - it has details and links about everything that goes into making something work. If you want to learn more or if something goes wrong it's all right there.

But yes, I think you hit the nail on the head at the end there - hackability is Arch's strength, everything is exposed and flexible to tinkering. It's easy to make almost anything work, and easy to learn how it works. That's very different from NixOS's core philosophy of stability and reproducibility.

There are inherent pros and cons to both approaches - it really comes down to a mix of personal preference and using the right tool for the right job. They're apples and oranges, and the article framing NixOS as a superior successor to Arch is as silly as the reverse would be.