3 ms·

Sure, but what if you're building a serverless framework or other multi-tenant system and the goal is for an external developer to not write backend code? You n

Sure, but what if you're building a serverless framework or other multi-tenant system and the goal is for an external developer to not write backend code? You need a compact way to represent and evaluate authentication and authorization, maintain schema or referential integrity, or do simple business logic checks.

andrewstuart2 10y ago
This is code. Instructions codified into a machine-readable format. It's just really verbose and complex code. It reads almost exactly like Polish notation [1], assembly code, an abstract syntax tree. Except encapsulated in JSON trees rather than space-separated lists. The problem is that it's almost entirely optimized for a machine to read, and not for a human. Next thing you know, you've written something a little complex in this new format and realized it's pretty hard to maintain. So what should you do? Create a program to generate it, perhaps, from a higher level, easier to read, representation. In other words, a compiler. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_notation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_notation
- asciimike 10y ago
  I don't think I ever said it wasn't code, I said it wasn't "backend code". We've exchanged some config (sure, basically an AST) for writing some express/django/rails middleware. I'd much rather check authentication status by writing "{"!=", [request.auth, null]}" than writing more backend code, especially if someone else has done a bunch of the work for me. That said, I'd argue this notation probably isn't a super concise representation for config over code. Implementing a JS evaluator so you could instead write "request.auth != null" and having JS like expressions is easier than the Prefix notation. Cool idea nonetheless!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
inopinatus 10y ago
All configuration is programming. Glib but true. It's practically axiomatic. And it follows immediately that all configuration can be represented by code. Learning that it should be is a matter of experience.

andrewstuart2 10y ago

This is code. Instructions codified into a machine-readable format. It's just really verbose and complex code. It reads almost exactly like Polish notation [1], assembly code, an abstract syntax tree. Except encapsulated in JSON trees rather than space-separated lists. The problem is that it's almost entirely optimized for a machine to read, and not for a human. Next thing you know, you've written something a little complex in this new format and realized it's pretty hard to maintain. So what should you do? Create a program to generate it, perhaps, from a higher level, easier to read, representation. In other words, a compiler. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_notation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_notation

asciimike 10y ago
I don't think I ever said it wasn't code, I said it wasn't "backend code". We've exchanged some config (sure, basically an AST) for writing some express/django/rails middleware. I'd much rather check authentication status by writing "{"!=", [request.auth, null]}" than writing more backend code, especially if someone else has done a bunch of the work for me. That said, I'd argue this notation probably isn't a super concise representation for config over code. Implementing a JS evaluator so you could instead write "request.auth != null" and having JS like expressions is easier than the Prefix notation. Cool idea nonetheless!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

inopinatus 10y ago

All configuration is programming. Glib but true. It's practically axiomatic. And it follows immediately that all configuration can be represented by code. Learning that it should be is a matter of experience.