[nucatus]

While there is a point in representing the state of the infrastructure as SQL to enforce type safety and other constraints, I still don’t understand what are the _real_ advantages over the current tooling. All the key advantages listed there, including type safety and cloud providers defined constraints, are already well covered by the actual battle-tested tools and frameworks.

Here are some areas where I identified some red flags regarding the present approach. These are key aspects of the everyday life of an infrastructure engineer.

Usability. The SQL abstractions simply don't scale to make the human<->machine mapping work. You would need another layer of abstraction to map that infrastructure into a state that is easily readable and understandable for our brain. On the other hand, the more consecrated tools use building blocks that both map well to be translated in infrastructure state _and_ are easily understood by our brain. Add some stored procedures to the party and you’re lost in the weeds.

Versioning. What would be the easiest way to extract from the SQL storage the difference between two versions of the infrastructure? With the traditional tools, that is an easy diff which reveals changes in a matter of several keystrokes with no extra layering.

Reusability. How easy is to port infrastructure code to other cloud providers? How easy is to define resource templates?