[dymk]

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".

[Jeff_Brown]

> 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.

[LoSboccacc]

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

[StreamBright]

>> 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?

[dymk]

How many languages have an Dhall implementation? One?

[nightkoder]

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

[singpolyma3]

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

[codebje]

Six or seven, or thereabouts.