5 ms·

Hi author here. We've created a new file format designed specifically for configuration: SAN (pronounce /seɪn/ like sane). You can find a Go parser here: http

Hi author here. We've created a new file format designed specifically for configuration: SAN (pronounce /seɪn/ like sane). You can find a Go parser here: https://github.com/phasersec/san-go https://github.com/phasersec/san-go Vim syntax here: https://github.com/z0mbie42/vim-san https://github.com/z0mbie42/vim-san SAN was created because of a need to have a Simple And Neat configuration format (with comments, unlike JSON, easy to parse unlike YAML....). The main killer features compared to YAML/TOML are the following: * Comments as first class citizens which means programs can manipulate and modify files with comments without destroying them. * Safe * Human and parser friendly * Easy to use, even without syntax coloration It's an open format and any feedback is welcome.

phaer 8y ago
Could you elaborate on the differences to HCL? It looks almost the same on first glance. Maybe minus functions and and nested blocks in HCL.
- z0mbie42 8y ago
  Hi, HCL was one of the source of inspiration. We wanted to push it 1 step further by providing a clear and open specification which allows to create parsers for languages other than go. So the main differences are the ecosystem: a CLI to auto format - think go fmt) and validate SAN files, parsers for languages others than Go
  - phaer 8y ago
    Are you aware of the HCL2 specification at https://github.com/hashicorp/hcl2/blob/master/hcl/hclsyntax/spec.md https://github.com/hashicorp/hcl2/blob/master/hcl/hclsyntax/...? It also provides a validator, even for custom schema definitions.
    - z0mbie42 8y ago
      Yes, The problem is that we want a pure data configuration format. We think that very few application require a full turing complete language for their configuration. Bazel have too it's own (turing complete ?) Programming configuration language
      - laurentlb 8y ago
        Bazel's language (https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark), also used in Buck and other tools, is technically not Turing-complete. In Bazel's BUILD files, there are additional restrictions (e.g. no function definition), making them relatively declarative and tool-friendly.
        kjeetgill 8y ago
        I literally just started prototyping this exact idea last week: a python interpreter without any imports/stdlib as a configuration language. I'm a little bummed I was beat to it. I was going back and forth on allowing defining functions. Definitely no classes.
crdoconnor 8y ago
>The main killer features compared to YAML/TOML are the following: >Comments as first class citizens which means programs can manipulate and modify files with comments without destroying them. >Safe >Human and parser friendly >Easy to use Those were also my goals with StrictYAML: http://hitchdev.com/strictyaml http://hitchdev.com/strictyaml
eptcyka 8y ago
Could you be more explicit as why you think TOML is not good enough? I used to think YAML was the greatest thing until I saw the spec and what was actually allowed. And then I sort of moved onto TOML, and now I'm curios, maybe TOML too has showstopping issues :)

phaer 8y ago

Could you elaborate on the differences to HCL? It looks almost the same on first glance. Maybe minus functions and and nested blocks in HCL.

z0mbie42 8y ago
Hi, HCL was one of the source of inspiration. We wanted to push it 1 step further by providing a clear and open specification which allows to create parsers for languages other than go. So the main differences are the ecosystem: a CLI to auto format - think go fmt) and validate SAN files, parsers for languages others than Go
- phaer 8y ago
  Are you aware of the HCL2 specification at https://github.com/hashicorp/hcl2/blob/master/hcl/hclsyntax/spec.md https://github.com/hashicorp/hcl2/blob/master/hcl/hclsyntax/...? It also provides a validator, even for custom schema definitions.
  - z0mbie42 8y ago
    Yes, The problem is that we want a pure data configuration format. We think that very few application require a full turing complete language for their configuration. Bazel have too it's own (turing complete ?) Programming configuration language
    - laurentlb 8y ago
      Bazel's language (https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark), also used in Buck and other tools, is technically not Turing-complete. In Bazel's BUILD files, there are additional restrictions (e.g. no function definition), making them relatively declarative and tool-friendly.
      - kjeetgill 8y ago
        I literally just started prototyping this exact idea last week: a python interpreter without any imports/stdlib as a configuration language. I'm a little bummed I was beat to it. I was going back and forth on allowing defining functions. Definitely no classes.

crdoconnor 8y ago

>The main killer features compared to YAML/TOML are the following: >Comments as first class citizens which means programs can manipulate and modify files with comments without destroying them. >Safe >Human and parser friendly >Easy to use Those were also my goals with StrictYAML: http://hitchdev.com/strictyaml http://hitchdev.com/strictyaml

eptcyka 8y ago

Could you be more explicit as why you think TOML is not good enough? I used to think YAML was the greatest thing until I saw the spec and what was actually allowed. And then I sort of moved onto TOML, and now I'm curios, maybe TOML too has showstopping issues :)