Fwd: FWIW: script vs. configurtion file
Arghh Gmail! Dangit!
This one was for the list.
cheers
zenaan
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:03:16 +1000
Subject: Re: FWIW: script vs. configurtion file
To: Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com>
On 7/24/14, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:46:56 +0900
> Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I suppose I'll get complaints about this being off-topic,
>
> Yeah you dirty dog :-)
>
>> but perhaps
>> we can expose a disagreement on terminology without the clutter and
>> heat of the discussion in which it came up.
>>
>> Words, when spoken, mean what the speaker meant. When heard, they
>> mean what the listener thinks they mean. Communiction only occurs
>> when there is some agreement between the two.
>>
>> Programming is a field of mathematics. Mathematically speaking,
>> limiting a language to a declarative syntax does not mean that the
>> language ceases to be a language.
>>
>> Trying to assert that configuration files which are limited to
>> declarations are not scripts is most kindly viewed as an assertion
>> that the configuration file syntax is simpler (for some definition of
>> simple) than configuration files that are allowed a greater number of
>> constructs (for example, conditions, loops, definitions, etc.).
>>
>> This is a subjective matter. One person's simple is not guaranteed to
>> be every person's simple.
>>
>> A known consequence of limiting syntax to declarations is that certain
>> kinds of complexity which can be exposed by a richer syntax end up
>> being hidden by the limited syntax.
>>
>> The complexities do not actually disappear, they are just hidden,
>> becoming implicit, buried in the definitions of the things being
>> declared.
>
> And, it just may be that you want this hiding. How much power over the
> program do you want to put in the hands of Joe Ordinary User? As a tech
> support guy, how much time do you want to spend supporting the user's
> config *program*?
>
> Although I spent 14 years making my living as a software developer,
> there are times when I don't want the freedom to do absolutely
> anything. This is why I switched away from Perl: I needed some
> limitations.
...
> I'm a huge fan of Yaml for config files. You can express almost any
> data situation that way.
ACK!
> If you like Yaml but want true programmability, Lua would
> be pretty good, because you can do with Lua
> tables pretty much anything you could do with Yaml, but you can also
> write procedural or functional code to go along with that data. The
> same could be said with Python dictionaries.
Thanks for your tidbits re Lua, sounds like something to
add to my bucket list :)
> Shame on you for being OT! But for guys like me, who regularly write
> programs so their Linux machine can efficiently run their businesses,
> your post is an excellent and thought provoking resource. Thanks!
ACK.
And that's for your contributions too Steve,
Zenaan
Reply to: