cue VS cue

If you are in a situation where you have a backend and you want to expose an API and then you would eventually want a client, you would need format specs as the starting point where server and clients are generated from that one source.

At the moment, OpenAPI with YAML is the only way to go but you can't easily split the spec into separate files as you would do any program with packages, modules and what not.

There are third party tools[0] which are archived and the libraries they depend upon are up for adoption.

In that space, either you can use something like cue language 1] or something like TypeSpec which is purpose built for this so yet, this seems like a great tool although I have not tried it yet myself.

[0]. https://github.com/APIDevTools/swagger-cli

[1]. https://cuelang.org/

EDIT: formating

Where `kube.cue` sets reasonable defaults (e.g. image is /). The "cluster" runs on a mini PC in my basement, and I have a small Digital Ocean VM with a static IP acting as an ingress (networking via Tailscale). Backups to cloud storage with restic, alerting/monitoring with Prometheus/Grafana, Caddy/Tailscale for local ingress.

[1] https://www.talos.dev/

[2] https://cuelang.org/

I've been somewhat surprised that CUE bills itself as "tooling friendly" and doesn't yet have a language server- the number one bit of tooling most devs use for a particular language.

I'm assuming it's becaus CUE is still unstable?

Anyway, if others are interested in CUE's LSP work, I think https://github.com/cue-lang/cue/issues/142 is the issue to subscribe to

This is where I usually pitch in with "Have your heard of CUELang, our lord and savior?": https://cuelang.org/

- Not turing complete

CUE: The core problem CUE solves is "type checking", which is mainly used in configuration constraint verification scenarios and simple cloud native configuration scenarios.

If you really want executable configurations please consider a newer language like https://dascript.org or https://cuelang.org which provide better type safety.

1- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38030778

Markdown and XML are nice, but what about more advanced documentation formats like OpenAPI? For one recent project, I set up automatic generation of the OpenAPI docs from (much more compact and flexible) CUE definitions (https://cuelang.org/) - which has the bonus of also being able to test the API against the definitions. JetBrains has a CUE plugin, but it's really barebones (doesn't even support jumping from the usage of a schema to its definition). Of course the possibilities when generating docs are endless (just think of the various syntaxes for doc comments, embedding examples/tests in source code etc.)...

It doesn't include validators for TOML and INI, but if you're doing JSON and YAML, I would take a look at using or building upon CUE (https://cuelang.org/). It is a different take on schema definition (plus more), and is surprising terse and powerful model.

I'm continuing to work on https://concise-encoding.org which is a new security-conscious ad-hoc encoding format to replace JSON/XML and friends. I've been at it for 3 years so far and am close to a release.

In a nutshell:

- Edit in text, transmit in binary. One can be seamlessly converted to the other, but binary is far more efficient for processing, storage and transmission, while text is better for humans to read and edit (which happens far less often than the other things).

- Secure by design: Everything is tightly specced and accounted for so that there aren't differences between implementations that can be exploited to compromise your system. https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ce...

- Real type support because coercing everything into strings sucks (and is another security risk and source of incompatibilities).

XML had a good run but was replaced by JSON which was a big improvement. JSON also had a good run but it's time for it to retire now that the landscape has changed even further: Security and efficiency are the desires of today, and JSON provides neither.

I've got the spec nailed down and can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel for the reference implementation in golang. I still need to come up with a system for schemas, but I'm hoping that https://cuelang.org will fit the bill.

Has anyone taken a look at Cue who can share any experiences?

https://cuelang.org/

It's mentioned on the site as an alternative to Yaml. Recently watched (~half of) this intro to it: https://youtu.be/fR_yApIf6jU

the most interesting summary explanation of cue lang and its differences is from a bug filing - https://github.com/cuelang/cue/issues/33

>CUE is a bit different from the languages used in linguistics and more tailored to the general configuration issue as we've seen it at Google. But under the hood it adheres strictly to the concepts and principles of these approaches and we have been careful not to make the same mistakes made in BCL (which then were copied in all its offshoots). It also means that CUE can benefit from 30 years of research on this topic. For instance, under the hood, CUE uses a first-order unification algorithm, allowing us to build template extractors based on anti-unification (see issue #7 and #15), something that is not very meaningful or even possible with languages like BCL and Jsonnet.

I agree with you. Personally, I think Cue is much better than either YAML, TOML or JSON because it adds the concept of types to the idea of describing configuration.

true, but the tooling and workflow remains the same.

Not sure of any tool that could abstract the details sufficiently to be widely adopted. There is just too much nuance in cloud config.

I'm exploring using CUE (https://cuelang.org) to define TF resources, exporting as JSON for TF. So far it's much nicer