Odd choice using systemd syntax willingly when all other industry tools use YAML, IMO
In fact, I'd prefer if the tools you mentioned used something else besides yaml.
Unfortunately, there norway way that's going happen.
To be fair, most of the popular DevOps tools can work with JSON instead of YAML just fine. And JSON can be easily generated from almost anywhere. I don't think you can work with systemd syntax as easily.
Yes, it's inspired by INI files.
also, fwiw, YAML is a data serialization format, not a configuration format. people who use YAML and pretend it's a config file format are either lazy, incompetent, or both.
No one is mincing words about YAML being used for configuration rather rampantly. They're saying it's a shitshow, and I agree.
> Configurations will almost always be serialized into some kind of struct
No, this is in fact a fairly modern phenomenon due to what I can only imagine is fear of compilers. The grand tradition is for configuration to be parsed and interpreted, which is rather distinct from serialization. Take your editor, or version control software of choice, or nearly every file in /etc, for example.
Standardizing things can be good, sure, and for all the warts YAML is at least consistent, usually, but it's a trend in the wrong direction.
Treating configuration as data is a Choice. I can hear them saying now "oh but being able to template or write a program to manipulate or edit configuration is so much better" -- take a look at how git config works. You can edit interactively with the CLI, read/write arbitrary fields, and yet it's not structured beyond INI style "key = value". There's no schema, and yet nothing is lost. There's certainly no Norway problem.