mgmt VS claro-lang

> I think etcd is basically a k8s only project now

I hate etcd with the best of them, but etcd is used in a lot more places than just kubernetes:

https://github.com/apache/apisix/blob/master/docs/en/latest/...

https://github.com/traefik/traefik#:~:text=Etcd,

https://github.com/zalando/patroni#patroni-a-template-for-po...

https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/tree/0.0.26/etcd (this one shows up on HN quite a bit)

https://github.com/sorintlab/stolon#features

It's actually one of the major reasons I wouldn't touch those projects

This is a new provisioning tool built with https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/ that I hope both provides great value and also demonstrates the start of a new way to build certain kinds of software.

Thanks for reading!

I've looked briefly into this project before. Some ideas are similar to what I'm doing in https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/ but the really weird thing is that I have no idea who's behind this language. A person? A company? A small group? Are they anonymous for some reason or am I oblivious?

I don't generally believe in orchestrators (they miss the point, things are not single computers and neither is the world) and so I have that feedback here but also for:

> Airflow/Cadence/Temporal/Databuilderframework?

Which don't really think about modelling non-centralized things.

This of course doesn't mean they're not useful, it's just that they don't have what I believe is a good long-term value proposition.

I'm incredibly biased because I'm working on programmatic, real-time modelling of distributed systems with https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/

The DAG concurrency stuff feels familiar to what I've been doing with our language, mcl. https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/

Our goal is NOT a general-purpose turing-complete language like this one is, but we do some amazing lock-free, DAG concurrency things to achieve the processing wins.

I don't think it's good news, but why is anyone surprised? Nobody wants to pay for open source.

Companies want it for free, and individuals don't have enough luxury time to be able to do it themselves.

Prove me wrong and help patch or fund https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/ and you'll have an even better replacement for terraform!

Individual here, not a company. We'd love contributors to https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/

Eventually decided puppet wasn't a good enough tool to be able to autonomously deploy and continuously manage such clusters. So I started working on this https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/ project. Not quite MVP yet, but trying to get there soon. Got distracted along the way with having to work real jobs (Red Hat, Amazon) to pay bills.

Interesting, although it seems to currently be missing a license. While Bazel and I are for sure not friends, I found this funny https://github.com/JasonSteving99/claro-lang/blob/v0.1.495/W... I guess it's similar to having a maven build under Nix but my relationship to Bazel is why I got a chuckle out of the russian doll setup

Oh wow, it looks like we've stumbled upon the same construct! In my language, Claro, what you call "interfaces" are called "contracts". I've found it to be a very powerful abstraction!

In fact, you've actually been a huge source of inspiration for building keyword-generics into the programming language I've been working on in private for the past 2 years! The language is called "Claro" and if you're interested, please take a look at the blocking-generics syntax that your initiative has inspired.

I've tried to do something unique in my lang, Claro. To avoid spamming my same comment again, check out my answer to a very similar thread yesterday

Didn't see the Github link (but having all the info here is certainly appreciated)

Hmm, so I still feel that C3's imports actually are binding to a specific implementation like other imports (Java/C/python/etc). I think a language would need to embed dependency injection concepts deep into its veins to avoid this. You'd need a way for implementation files to specify that they depend on something with a certain name and a certain interface but not to name the specific implementation. Then a separate parallel module system (more like a Guice (dep injection framework) module than the modules in C3) would indicate the specific implementation that happens to be desired this run of the program. This is the inherent modularity that I'm looking to implement in Claro. There's some prototyping of this idea in the example programs at https://github.com/JasonSteving99/claro-lang/blob/main/src/java/com/claro/claro_programs/modules.claro

In Claro I'm trying the following distinct types of procedures: