3 ms·
This criticism doesn't pass the sniff test though: your average Haskeller loves to extoll the virtues of using Haskell to implement a DSL for some system which
by XorNot 3y ago
This criticism doesn't pass the sniff test though: your average Haskeller loves to extoll the virtues of using Haskell to implement a DSL for some system which is ultimately just doing the same thing in practice (because they're still not going to write documentation for it, but hey, how hard can it be to figure out it's just...)
YAML becomes a programming language because vendors need a DSL for their system, and they need to present it in a form which every other language can mostly handle the AST for, which means it's easiest if it just lives atop a data transfer format.
- baq 3y agomaybe yaml should standardise hygienic macros. and a repl.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoThe lengths people go to avoid using s-expressions never ceases to amaze me. We're talking countless centuries and great many minds pushed to brink of madness, just to keep the configs looking like Python or JavaScript.
- baq 3y agoI'd say it's even worse: it's a collective hallucination that complex configs are not code.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoHey now. Your average Haskeller would simply recommend you replace YAML with Dhall. https://dhall-lang.org/ https://dhall-lang.org/
- worldsayshi 3y agoWhy not "just" use an embedded DSL?
- ManBeardPc 3y agoI don't know what this has to do with Haskell. I understand that they need a DSL for their system. I just don't agree that it is a good idea to use some general purpose serialization format. In the end they always evolve to a nearly full programming language with conditions and loops. Using a full programming language makes much more sense IMHO, for example like Zig build files or how we use Python to build neural networks. That way I can actually use existing tools to do what I need.