3 ms·

This is quite simply false. Reducing your statement, using count in Terraform makes it imperative, which is patently false, since it is instructing the tool how

by jen20 4y ago

This is quite simply false. Reducing your statement, using count in Terraform makes it imperative, which is patently false, since it is instructing the tool how to build a view of the world. I could write a Prolog language host for Pulumi. Obviously that would not be imperative. It would present the exact same model as TypeScript or Go. The engine is what matters, not the configuration format.

verdverm 4y ago
TF has indeed introduced some questionable semantics, though count does not make it imperative. On this you are wrong. Yes the infra after the imperative step can have declarative layers, but the DX is still imperative. Declarative frameworks still have imperative operations underneath. You cannot argue that something is a declarative DX that is no longer a declarative input. Declarative DX is what matters. Pulumi reverses this so that the outer most layer is no longer declarative. Declarative as a term came to be because it is what the human is doing > The engine is what matters, not the configuration format. Code is not a configuration format...
- jen20 4y ago
  > Code is not a configuration format... Sorry, Lisp says otherwise. It's clear I'm not going to modify your view of the world here, and you certainly are not going to modify mine, so I don't think there is any point in continuing this conversation.
  - verdverm 4y ago
    Lisp is a special case, iirc, they think about it more as code is data. What if we only consider the languages most used with Pulumi? Now let's consider another idea... can Pulumi prevent me from making arbitrary calls to an API or database to fill in the "declarative code"? Honestly, reading the pulumi website ought to be enough to realize they think of it as programming and not something "declarative". They don't even use the word, because they aren't. They call it programming, programs, and code in many places, so they are positioning themselves differently from how you are describing them.

by jen20 4y ago

verdverm 4y ago

TF has indeed introduced some questionable semantics, though count does not make it imperative. On this you are wrong. Yes the infra after the imperative step can have declarative layers, but the DX is still imperative. Declarative frameworks still have imperative operations underneath. You cannot argue that something is a declarative DX that is no longer a declarative input. Declarative DX is what matters. Pulumi reverses this so that the outer most layer is no longer declarative. Declarative as a term came to be because it is what the human is doing > The engine is what matters, not the configuration format. Code is not a configuration format...

jen20 4y ago
> Code is not a configuration format... Sorry, Lisp says otherwise. It's clear I'm not going to modify your view of the world here, and you certainly are not going to modify mine, so I don't think there is any point in continuing this conversation.
- verdverm 4y ago
  Lisp is a special case, iirc, they think about it more as code is data. What if we only consider the languages most used with Pulumi? Now let's consider another idea... can Pulumi prevent me from making arbitrary calls to an API or database to fill in the "declarative code"? Honestly, reading the pulumi website ought to be enough to realize they think of it as programming and not something "declarative". They don't even use the word, because they aren't. They call it programming, programs, and code in many places, so they are positioning themselves differently from how you are describing them.