I think the real problem is config files either in hard-to-parse-correctly custom ad-hoc formats or even "config files" written in a scripting language (-> impossible to parse).
All config files should use the same standard format. I'd say "like YAML", but I'm not aware of a widely-used format with standard features like file includes or data types beyond "int" and "string" (e.g. for time intervals; these really shouldn't be "just a string... with a custom format").
The complexity this brings can be overwhelming compared to an ad-hoc config file format.
But your complexity comparison is unfair. Ad-hoc file formats are overwhelming. Users don't see the complexity because there is no spec and they just write config files by example. Developers generally either give up or write something that doesn't behave quite the same. A fair comparison would be:
""""
XML looks like this:
<section>
<subsection>
<key>value</key>
</subsection>
</section>
"""
I can't think of a single format that would lend itself to all cases, but I agree that config files should be in a standard format (i.e. a format that is supported by parsing tools).
YAML++ for being very readable.
I think it would be better to just start with a Turing complete language. I think they should use Lua. It has very simple general data structures that are self explanatory, and its very lightweight and sandboxable.
The only issue is combining config files with other programs. You don't want to strip the comments or formatting when you modify it with another program. Also wish there was a way to specify metadata, like what the possible values for a variable are allowed to be. Or descriptions and help info. With that you could easily convert config files into GUIs.
No! Turing complete config files are even worse than ad-hoc config files.
If your config format is turing complete, you couldn't correctly modify config files automatically. (You wouldn't even know how long until you're done evaluating it.)
If you need more logic, put it in your program or have a plugin system or write a program that generates the config file, but don't put it in the config file.
Many projects start out with just simple config files. But then they realize they need to do logic, and hack that into it. Then they realize they need more complex logic, and hack even more stuff in. And it's just a mess. It would have been much cleaner if they just started out with a scripting language.
Whether you should be putting logic in the config file is a different issue, but as long as people do it or have a need to do it, it's much better than crazy ad hoc solutions.
See these discussions on the issue: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/648246/at-what-point-doe... https://medium.com/@MrJamesFisher/configuration-files-suck-6...
But as soon as scripting is supported, it's impossible to write tools that process the config files and always work, especially with untrusted config files. You can't have both.
So the question is: can code be separated from config (like I've proposed above) (the code can still be inlined in the config file, as long as the "root" of the config file is declarative and the boundaries are well-defined)?
If no, which is more important: parseability or flexibility? It's a tradeoff.
My personal opinion is almost exactly the opposite. If the program's config file requires anything more complicated than a regular language to specify, it's doing too much.
1. Lack of adption: It's not widely used yet. Implementations for few languages.
2. No formal spec; the "spec" is very imprecise and seems to try very hard to leave as much as possible to the implementation.
3. The spec is very, very Java specific. No clear separation between "core HOCON" and "Java extensions".
4. It probably doesn't lend itself well to automatic changes in a way that preserves structure of an original file (-> without just rendering out JSON).
It's clear that HOCONs only real focus is being easy to edit manually.
It's a nice idea, but it's definitely not the long term solution we need.
Not sure how this compares http://raml.org/
Making documentation for graphical programs often requires screenshots and sentences like "click the third radio button on the right-hand section" that add nothing to the documentation and are easily misunderstood by hapless users. Then the developer changes the layout of the dialog box and you need a new set of screenshots. I'll grant that GUIs are more discoverable to a casual user.
I seem to recall that it's possible to automate GUI software but it seems fraught with peril in a way that automation of a commandline and text config system simply is not.
Try automating the deployment of a new IIS server 8 years ago. Hell, try it today.
> Try automating the deployment of a new IIS server 8
> years ago. Hell, try it today.
"Download this, and this. Then run the Installation Wizard and select this and this and this, and this if you want it but you might not need it. Then install this and reboot. Then run the New Server Configuration Wizard Utility Package. Then ..." (cont. 94 pages) -- every tutorial.