Hacker News Reader

Comment by Vosporos | Hacker News Reader

So? They live in the same solution domain for the same problem. Moreover, Dhall can generate (typechecked) YAML and JSON.

View on HN

It's not even in the same solution space. I can't replace my YAML with Dhall and consume it directly. I have to now depend on the converter to go from Dhall -> YAML/JSON. All I did was add another layer of complexity into my config.

Maybe you'll benefit from the added abstraction; I see the value in having "typed" configs that are semi-scriptable but not turing complete. But it's in no way a "replacement".

> All I did was add another layer of complexity

If that was in fact all you had done, it would not be worth it. But it might remove a ton of boilerplate from your YAML.

or, one can eliminate boilerplate in code so that configuration stays simple and the logic in the application

I mean what's the role of configuration? is so that installer can tune or match environments. if configuration becomes as hard as your program to understand then installation won't ever scale

>> I can't replace my YAML with Dhall and consume it directly.

Sorry I don't get it. Why not? Because your favorite languages do not support it?

How many languages have an Dhall implementation? One?

As far as I know Clojure, Haskell, Ruby, Rust in various stages of completion..

Both Clojure and Eta bindings should allow really anything on the JVM to consume directly.

Six or seven, or thereabouts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com