4 ms·
I don't want to interpret my configuration. I don't want it to act as a source code. Many places at Google use text representation of protobuffers as config fi
by galkk 6y ago
I don't want to interpret my configuration. I don't want it to act as a source code.
Many places at Google use text representation of protobuffers as config files and I like it a lot. It's typed. It's readable. The schema and text are source controlled. You have code generators for many languages.
(Work at Google, opinion is mine)
- q3k 6y agoText protos are decent (although a lack of a public spec limits their adoption outside of Google). But that's just a serialization format, only a piece of the configuration puzzle. You may argue that all configuration should be fully static, but having gone from writing GCL/BCL at Google to having to deal with static, text-templated, copy-pasted YAMLs in the Real World - I want my GCL back. :)
- sa46 6y agoIronically, nickel was the name of the Google-internal, ill-fated replacement for GCL. I think it just lives on in blueprint files. I also miss GCL, as quirky as it was. YAML composes poorly.
- verdverm 6y agoGCL also came up in the Cue slack channel today, and why Cue is intentionally different https://cuelang.org/community https://cuelang.org/community
- ithkuil 6y agoIf you want GCL back, here you have it: https://jsonnet.org/ https://jsonnet.org/ A bit cleaned up (withour "up" and without weird scoping rules)