3 ms·
Yeah, I've used that a year ago or so. Pros: not Turing complete but quite powerful, nice type system and functions. For example one can write a type safe conf
by Reitet00 5y ago
Yeah, I've used that a year ago or so.
Pros: not Turing complete but quite powerful, nice type system and functions. For example one can write a type safe config migration from v1 to v2 (and check statically that it works), exports to JSON, YAML etc.
Cons: uses Haskell like syntax, no bindings to various languages. You basically need to ship the dhall binary to convert the config to something else that your target application will consume.
- ReleaseCandidat 5y ago> no bindings to various languages. There are bindings to some languages: Haskell, Clojure, Go, Rust, Ruby and Purescript. https://docs.dhall-lang.org/howtos/How-to-integrate-Dhall.html#language-support https://docs.dhall-lang.org/howtos/How-to-integrate-Dhall.ht...