5 ms·
It'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 ->
by dymk 7y ago
It'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.