> I think the point of a lot of configuration formats is that they don't want their configuration to also be a full-fledged programming language.
replyThat seems to be everyone's initial goal, but then it inevitably gets leaky.
I think the dominant split here that forces everything into a weird mismash is that nobody really wants to have to understand arbitrary programming language configs for third-party stuff, they want to read config and know what's going on. BUT for their own stuff, they find reasons to want more power and expressibility...
> they don't want their configuration to also be a full-fledged programming language.
replyThey say they don't want it but every configurmation format eventually ends up becoming turing complete at some point.
There has been some config languages, like Cue, that are not Turing complete. It is useful of have them always complete and have deterministic evaluation.
replyCue also has a lot of schema validation which is better than dynamic languages.