I stumbled across yet another most unnecessary "DevOps" tool for ensuring config files adhere to a structure, schema, & satisfy naming conventions. It was written in a dynamically typed language using a very stringly (weakly) typed API that they exposed to users for extension. /1
Rust's derive(Encode) and Decode style (which comes from the techniques you're talking about) works really well for me.
-
-
That said, are you referring to Ruby as a stringly typed language? Or a different language?
-
I didn't want to bitch about one specific tool just because I found it this morning (it is just the latest non-optimally productive I've found), but it does much more than derive Encode. I think the approach to deriving the level of "linting" is cumbersome, incurring maint costs.
-
The tool I was thinking about (to validate the form, _semantic_ structure, and project-based values) is a good honest attempt at making the world of ops tooling better. I'm suggesting it is one point on the design space and possibly has little merit to other approaches compared.
-
Note: I am assuming derive Encode is a less general form of derive Generic from Haskell as this is the only way I have seen it used in Rust examples so far?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.