4 ms·
Author Here. Yeah, I am really excited about Dhall. I think this is the future, it supports the types of abstractions that we need without the mess of full tem
by agbell 6y ago
Author Here.
Yeah, I am really excited about Dhall. I think this is the future, it supports the types of abstractions that we need without the mess of full templating or full turing completeness.
The one downside to Dhall is you really want to have an implementation for it in each common language. You can use it to generate YAML, but I think it would be better if tools understood Dhall and that is a bigger ask because it is a more complicated implementation.
Let's build Dhall implementations for every major language, convince Gabe to format things in a way that makes it look more familiar to non-haskell people and consider this problem solved.
- haskellandchill 6y ago> Let's build Dhall implementations for every major language That sounds like fun, is there any effort underway for this? I'd be down to contribute.
- agbell 6y agoThere are for some languages. https://github.com/dhall-lang https://github.com/dhall-lang
- alephu5 6y agoI love Dhall and really don't understand why the industry hasn't standardised on it yet, seems like a no brainer. I disagree with your point that it should supported by each language however, I think it's much better to use something simple like JSON as a "compilation" target since it's easy for machines to read and lets users pick the configuration backend. Use a smart language like Dhall or bazel for managing configuration and use a mundane format like JSON for the machine, let the Dhall binary bridge the gap.