3 ms·

Every time an article on configuration languages gets posted here there's always a chorus of pooh-poohing. This is a solved problem, just use YAML/JSON/XML/what

by cwp 7y ago

Every time an article on configuration languages gets posted here there's always a chorus of pooh-poohing. This is a solved problem, just use YAML/JSON/XML/whatever. Just use the same language as your app. Just use bash. I don't understand why people hate on new languages so much. Learning a language is pretty easy, at most a week or two of concentrated effort. On the other hand, we put years of effort into software projects. If learning a new language would make us 10% more productive with a sizeable chunk of the work, that's a HUGE WIN. Configuration at scale is something new and we don't have good ways of doing it yet. Inventing new languages and tools to make it easier will be hugely rewarding; WAY more than a 10% improvement. Some of the stuff we invent won't be perfect. So what? Let a thousand projects bloom, we'll see what works and what doesn't. That's how our profession advances.

archibaldJ 7y ago
"at most a week or two of concentrated effort" - that's actually becoming increasingly costly due to the ever-increasing opportunity cost attached to basically everything. And it consumes mental resources too. Things may end up becoming more unproductive. And then there is the risk of a new language/toolkit/library/framework becoming under-maintained over the long run. I believe these are the reasons why everyone ends up using ad hoc solutions and doing it their own way that works in a case-by-case basis despite not enjoying as much generalisation as says the new language/toolkit/library/framework which is basically an implementation following specifications designed to solve a more general/abstract problem in a particular way such as described in this article. Nonetheless I'm glad this article has received a good amount of upvotes to appear on the front page of HN. I'm just wondering what the conversion rate is like i.e. how many % of people who clicked in would go through the entire article and learn about CUE lang in its details and how many % of these people would end up using CUE lang. And then there is the question of how many % of these people would stick to CUE lang over the long run (says over the course of 1 year).

by cwp 7y ago

archibaldJ 7y ago

"at most a week or two of concentrated effort" - that's actually becoming increasingly costly due to the ever-increasing opportunity cost attached to basically everything. And it consumes mental resources too. Things may end up becoming more unproductive. And then there is the risk of a new language/toolkit/library/framework becoming under-maintained over the long run. I believe these are the reasons why everyone ends up using ad hoc solutions and doing it their own way that works in a case-by-case basis despite not enjoying as much generalisation as says the new language/toolkit/library/framework which is basically an implementation following specifications designed to solve a more general/abstract problem in a particular way such as described in this article. Nonetheless I'm glad this article has received a good amount of upvotes to appear on the front page of HN. I'm just wondering what the conversion rate is like i.e. how many % of people who clicked in would go through the entire article and learn about CUE lang in its details and how many % of these people would end up using CUE lang. And then there is the question of how many % of these people would stick to CUE lang over the long run (says over the course of 1 year).