3 ms·
So? They live in the same solution domain for the same problem. Moreover, Dhall can generate (typechecked) YAML and JSON.
by Vosporos 7y ago
So? They live in the same solution domain for the same problem.
Moreover, Dhall can generate (typechecked) YAML and JSON.
- dymk 7y agoIt's not even in the same solution space. I can't replace my YAML with Dhall and consume it directly. I have to now depend on the converter to go from Dhall -> YAML/JSON. All I did was add another layer of complexity into my config. Maybe you'll benefit from the added abstraction; I see the value in having "typed" configs that are semi-scriptable but not turing complete. But it's in no way a "replacement".
- Jeff_Brown 7y ago> All I did was add another layer of complexity If that was in fact all you had done, it would not be worth it. But it might remove a ton of boilerplate from your YAML.
- LoSboccacc 7y agoor, one can eliminate boilerplate in code so that configuration stays simple and the logic in the application I mean what's the role of configuration? is so that installer can tune or match environments. if configuration becomes as hard as your program to understand then installation won't ever scale
- StreamBright 7y ago>> I can't replace my YAML with Dhall and consume it directly. Sorry I don't get it. Why not? Because your favorite languages do not support it?
- dymk 7y agoHow many languages have an Dhall implementation? One?
- nightkoder 7y agoAs far as I know Clojure, Haskell, Ruby, Rust in various stages of completion..
- singpolyma3 7y agoBoth Clojure and Eta bindings should allow really anything on the JVM to consume directly.
- codebje 7y agoSix or seven, or thereabouts.