Unironically this. After trying Kubernetes, Terraform, Ansible, and various proprietary PaaS config formats, I've grown to love Compose files' simplicity.
I'll happily try anything simpler than that if you give me an idea what that might be.
Not trying to be salty or anything – I really think Compose hits the sweet spot of abstraction which is less complex than both the monstrosities I listed and the ad hoc Bash scripts copying code over SSH and restarting services approach (so, the other extremity of declarative v. imperative).
Actually yeah! A single node is usually enough for me though, but I like the ability to throw in more nodes as needed (more or less painlessly, as long as you properly guard services that need persistent volumes with a label constraint).
Shameless plug: I also make a Docker Swarm dashboard, check it out: https://lunni.dev/
What strikes you as difficult with compose files? In fact, I would say it’s the most concise format to describe a desired state of running applications currently available.
Compose is an open source project entirely separate to hub, though. The compose file specification is versioned separately, and will outlive Docker, probably. So I don’t quite get your criticism?
How are you using compose without docker? They are joined at the hip, criticism of one is criticism of the other.
The days of cheap money are over, it's inevitable that certain SaaS companies will start tightening the screws on their users to match the returns they can get with cash in a bank. I just wish lxc (which docker was built off) got a chance to gain traction. It's miles ahead in DX and sure they serve different functionalities but can be used the same and the network effects can't be understated.
No, that isn't true. Compose can absolutely be used with Docker replacements, and there is no reason you couldn't create an implementation for LXC, for example.