* I mean, it uses an ill defined subset of YAML. The definition is "whatever the Symfony YAML parser supports".
PHP.
I understand why some languages rely on common configuration file formats.
I don't understand why the popular dynamic script-y languages don't more commonly use the natively-expressable associative/list data structures that they're famous for making convenient.
You picked the wrong language... PHP comes with its own JSON parser. And INI and XML and even CSV.
But, the reason is that, generally, you want config files to describe data or state only. Yes, you could just make your config native code, but then the temptation to add functions and methods and logic to that becomes irresistible and soon your config is an application that needs its own config.
Config formats need to be simple, and preferably not Turing complete.
See The Configuration Complexity Clock. https://mikehadlow.blogspot.com/2012/05/configuration-comple...
INI is still simple, and JSON doesn't support logic, so the madness can be held at bay at least for a time.
XML and s-expressions are lost causes, though.
There's no language that I'm aware of that can natively generate PHP syntax, and there's no common multi-language-platform library for generating PHP syntax. I think that's most of the reason.
To contradict myself, though: Ruby encodes Gemfiles and Rakefiles as Ruby syntax. And Elixir encodes Mixfiles, Mix.Config files, Distillery release-config files, and a bunch of other common data formats as Elixir syntax.
And, of course, pretty much every Lisp just serializes the sexpr representation of the live config for its config format (which means that, frequently, a lot of Lisp runs code at VM-bootstrap time, because people write Turing-complete config files.)
This is a solid argument against using PHP (or any such language) as a cross-language data interchange format. There are others :) And I totally agree you want a language independent format for anything you might have to feed across an ecosystem of tools.
For a PHP-system generating/altering its own config files... PHP's `var_export` generates a PHP-parseable string representation of a variable (though it sadly doesn't use the short array syntax).
Turing-complete config files probably have some hazards, like Lisp itself does. YMMV regarding whether those hazards can be avoided by circumspect developers or need to be fenced off.
Django's settings.py sucks. I've used Django since the 0.9 days. It's extremely impractical and needs to be worked around constantly.
And you won't have to generate your config files (parsing, maaaaaybe), because those needs are covered by the fact that the files are programs. They are _already_ generating a configuration.
Yes, theoretically, if settings.py was a "generator" format that you ran as a pre-step (like you do to get parser-generators like Bison to spit out source files for you to work with), and this generator actually spat out something like a settings.json, and all the rest of the infrastructure actually dealt with the settings.json rather than the generator, then, yes, it wouldn't matter. Tools in other languages could just generate the settings.json directly.
As it stands, none of those things are true, so tools in other languages actually need to do something that outputs settings.py files.
That means that if I wanted to configure Vagrant with JSON, there is no force in the universe that could stop me.
If the config file is actually a normal program, then it can do normal program things, then any benefit from using JSON instead is nullified by the fact that you can still use JSON. In turn, if your tools primary configuration is via a more limited settings, you're stuck with it. Not even "generators in other languages" allow comparable runtime flexibility.
Actually, I've had to use PHP to output a PHP configuration array for a project that required config in PHP.
`var_export($foo)` will output valid PHP code for creating the array $foo. In my case I was doing horrible things to create the array in my pseudo-makefile, then using `var_export()` to output the result. Note that you can run php from the Bash CLI with the `-r` flag, which helps.
$CFG = random() > 0.5 ? "yes" : "no";
...is likely "too powerful". It'd be nice if there were ways in certain programming languages to do something like "drop privileges" to avoid loops, function calls, external access, etc.
Using code-as-data works really well in Lisp-like languages. Reading a Clojure project's project.clj file or a Lisp project's project.asdf file is pretty pleasant. A programming language's choice in how it decides to handle library config info for building and specifying dependencies (XML, makefiles, JSON, YAML, INI, nothing, etc...) will be a good indicator for the culture of the language around config files in general. Composer for PHP only came out in 2012.
John Ousterhout explained in one of his early TCL papers that, as a "Tool Command Language" like the shell but unlike Lisp, arguments were treated as quoted literals by default (presuming that to be the common case), so you don't have to put quotes around most strings, and you have to use punctuation like ${}[] to evaluate expressions.
TCL's syntax is optimized for calling functions with literal parameters to create and configure objects, like a declarative configuration file. And it's often used that way with Tk to create and configure a bunch of user interface widgets.
Oliver Steel has written some interesting stuff about "Instance-First Development" and how it applies to the XML/JavaScript based OpenLaszlo programming language, and other prototype based languages.
Instance-First Development: https://blog.osteele.com/2004/03/classes-and-prototypes/
>The equivalence between the two programs above supports a development strategy I call instance-first development. In instance-first development, one implements functionality for a single instance, and then refactors the instance into a class that supports multiple instances.
>[...] In defining the semantics of LZX class definitions, I found the following principle useful:
>Instance substitution principal: An instance of a class can be replaced by the definition of the instance, without changing the program semantics.
In OpenLaszlo, you can create trees of nested instances with XML tags, and when you define a class, its name becomes an XML tag you can use to create instances of that class.
That lets you create your own domain specific declarative XML languages for creating and configuring objects (using constraint expressions and XML data binding, which makes it very powerful).
The syntax for creating a bunch of objects is parallel to the syntax of declaring a class that creates the same objects.
So you can start by just creating a bunch of stuff in "instance space", then later on as you see the need, easily and incrementally convert only the parts of it you want to reuse and abstract into classes.
What is OpenLaszlo, and what's it good for? http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/124
Constraints and Prototypes in Garnet and Laszlo: http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/69
All configuration files were Tcl data structures that were sourced on server start.
[1] An example: https://github.com/spc476/mod_blog/blob/master/journal/blog....
Lua is great.
There's also an argument about whether making configuration files able to execute arbitrary code is a good idea. You get straight into the JavaScript 'eval' problems which we've spent a decade escaping.
Your configuration file is one of your program interface. It's something that must be well define. If your configuration file is a programing language this interface is not that well defined.
Also you expose yourself to all kind of weird bugs because some (too smart for their own good) people will monkey patch your software using it.
It adds a lot of unnecessary stuff in the configuration file, things like ';' or '$' are not really useful.
Lastly, common configuration file format are good because there are... common. You can have 2 pieces of software in 2 different languages accessing the same configuration file. A common example of that is configuration management, There are a lot of modules/formula in salt/ansible/puppet/chef doing fine parsing of the configuration files and permits fine grain settings, and I'm not mentioning augeas. If your configuration is a php/python/perl/ruby file good luck with that.
I know it's really common for php applications to do configuration files in php, but frankly, it's a bit annoying.
While I do agree with the rest of your comment I don't think they were advocating using the full language for configuration, just the maps/arrays/etc. (e.g. Python's `literal_eval`).
Something like:
config = {'key1': 'value1', 'key2': 'value2'}
could be written as:
config = {}
config['key1'] = 'value1'
config['key2'] = 'value2'
With large chunk possible between the 3.
It basically transforms the configuration file into an API like any library, which is not really what you want for an end user program.
Consider this: Design and optimize for the common case.
Why do we have config files? Because developers actually want a place dedicated to simple or structured application configuration data, for which PHP assignments with arrays + primitives can function at least as effectively as JSON. Most developers would prefer that config data get loaded quickly so the application can get on to doing actual app-y things. Using the language for this means you're parsing at least as fast as you can interpret and you can also take advantage of any code caching that's part of your deployment (especially nice in the PHP-likely event that config settings would be reloaded with every request).
Abuse isn't likely to be the common case. The end users you invoked certainly aren't going to be the ones looking for opportunities to insert code over data. Developers have other places to put code and, as mentioned, probably actually want a place dedicated to data. You're still right that of course someone will do it, just like someone will inevitably create astronaut architecture hierarchy monstrosities in any language with classical inheritance or make potentially hidden/scary changes to language function using metaprogramming facilities.
But potential for abuse doesn't automatically mean a feature should be disallowed.
A lot of the time it's better to let people who can be circumspect have the benefits of a potential approach, and if somebody thinks they need to solve a problem by using a technique that's arguably abuse, well, let them either find out why it's a bad idea or enjoy having solved their problem in an unusual way. Not the end of the world. Possibly even legit.
But to play the devil's advocate, how would JSON be able to support round-tripping comments like XML can, since <!-- comments --> are part of the DOM model that you can read and write, while JSON // and /* comments */ are invisible to JavaScript programs. There's nowhere to store the comments in the JSON object model, which you would need to be able to write them back out later!
On important feature of JSON is being able to read and write JSON files with full fidelity and not lose any information like comments. XML can do that, but JSON can't. To fix that you'd have to go back and redesign (and vastly complicate) fundamental JavaScript objects and arrays and values, to be as complex and byzantine as the DOM API.
The less-than-ideal situation we're in isn't JSON's fault or JavaScript's fault, because JSON is just a post-hoc formalization of something that was designed for a different purpose. But JSON is rightly more popular than XML, because it's extremely simple, and nicely impedance matched with many popular languages.
YAML suffers from the same problem as JSON that it can't round-trip comments like XML can, but it fails to be as simple as JSON, is almost as complex as XML, and doesn't even map directly to many popular languages (as the article points out, you can't use a list as a dict key in Python, PHP, JavaScript, or Go, etc).
You can sidestep some of JSON's problems by representing JSON as outlines and tables in spreadsheets, without any need for syntax and sigils like brackets, braces, commas, no commas, quoting, escaping, tabs, spaces, etc, but in a way that supports rich formatted comments and content (you can even paste pictures and live charts into most spreadsheets if you like), and even dynamic transformations with spreadsheet expressions and JavaScript.
See my comments about that in this and another article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17360071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17309132
At the end of the day I'm sure the reason we don't have JSON comments is somewhere listed in this page: xkcd.com/927/
> I removed comments from JSON because I saw people were using them to hold parsing directives, a practice which would have destroyed interoperability. I know that the lack of comments makes some people sad, but it shouldn't.
https://plus.google.com/+DouglasCrockfordEsq/posts/RK8qyGVaG...
And why to model JSON syntax closely after JavaScript literal object syntax (which is actually more convenient, by the way) which, being taken from mainstream programming languages, naturally evolved to be written by humans in small amounts not by computers in large dumps? :)
But you really only need comments in JSON if you're doing stuff like storing configuration in JSON, and JSON's too fiddly in general to be a great config file format (too easy to do something like forget a comma; no support for types beyond object, array, (floating point) number, and string). Something more like YAML without the wonky type inference would be better, IMO.
It's still in its early stages, so if anyone's got any comments I'm interested in hearing them :-)
It doesn't support it for whitespace in general (if you deserialize into JS object model or equivalent), so why would it be any different for comments specifically? It's just not a design goal of the format.
Although, of course, it's quite possible to have a JSON parser that preserves representation. It'll just have a non-obvious mapping to the host language because of all the comment and whitespace nodes etc.
While not mandated by the YAML specification, it doesn't prevent creation of a parser that round-trips comments.
In fact, the ruamel.yaml project for Python provides one.
In fact YAML is probably more complex than XML; the specification of YAML, when I print it into PDF, is about three times as long as that of XML 1.0. (And XML 1.0 also describes DTD, which is kind of a simple type validation for XML and thus includes much more than just serialization syntax.)
Technically, this is not JSON. You won't be able to use a standard JSON parser without stripping comments first. But you can use a simple, JSON-like language with comments for config.
[1] https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/languages/json#_json-with...
YAML can be employed as a simple JSON-like language with comments.
YAML is much, much more complicated than JSON.
> simple
YAML is much, much more complicated than JSON.
So, this unnecessary parser complexity is a usability issue. You should use a parser for the config language you actually intend to support.
Supports comments, trailing commas, single quotes, multi-line strings, and more number formats.
[
1
2
3
]
New lines used by humans, computers should do a good job as well.
required: [
'firstName'
'lastName'
which is the same as:
{
"required": [
"firstName",
"lastName"
]
in JSON :)
Jsonnet is a relief. Kubernetes should have been a dumb json config from the get go. JSON is ridiculously simple to parse and emit. It has huge interoperability as well with lots of programming languages.
P.S. You Romanian by any chance?
Drupal 8 file format discussion was in 2011, predating it by two years. https://groups.drupal.org/node/159044
I don't like it because it uses the = symbol which seems imperative rather than declarative. (Same with HCL, it might be a nitpick but these are languages I'm going to be using all the time.)
HOCON is interesting but at first glance it seems it might be too ambiguous for my tastes, because like YAML, because it supports both js-style ("//") and shell-style ("#") comments.
JSON plus comments is beautiful because it adds minimally to an unambiguous language which lends itself to automatic formatting (stringificiation).
eh?
{ "firstName": "John", "lastName": "Smith", "comment": "foo", }
I know it isn't the same as #comments, but who cares really.
the person who came up with HOCON, probably
{ # comment with a note about the value of foo "foo": "bar", # comment with a note about the value of baz "baz": "qux" }
Without driving myself and future readers insane with fooComments and bazComments?
What if I need a multiline comment explaining a yak-shaving story for why a key is set to a certain value?
What if the object in question is a set of keyword arguments, and adding new fields changes the behavior of whaever is parsing the document?
{
"#": "A foo variable",
"foo": true,
"#": "A bar variable",
"bar": false
}
{
"# A foo variable": "",
"foo": true,
"# A multiline..": "",
"# .. bar variable": "",
"bar": false
}
Also...
print (json.dumps(json.loads(js_data), indent=2))
{
"bar": false,
"foo": true,
"# A multiline..": "",
"# .. bar variable": "",
"# A foo variable": ""
}