pyinfra VS starlark

There is https://pyinfra.com/

As a sidenote, I also made a small experiment a while ago : https://github.com/linkdd/tricorder/

But it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. Without users, I don't know how it should be used, without features I won't get any users. So for now, it's in a state of "I'll address bug reports and feature requests, but I won't actively develop it".

I like https://github.com/pyinfra-dev/pyinfra. "pyinfra automates infrastructure using Python"

Only played with it for a little but it seems well designed an simpler alternative to ansible, chef and other such things.

Haven't used it in anger yet, but I have high hopes for PyInfra: https://github.com/pyinfra-dev/pyinfra

pyinfra - https://pyinfra.com/ - Pyinfra is simpler for me than Ansible. I completed the entire deployment in one afternoon, from installing and configuring the VPS server from scratch to deploying the application and automatically restoring the database from a backup.

I’ve replaced Ansible with PyInfra where ever possible. https://pyinfra.com/ is very clean, and fast but lacks the shear amount of automation that can be found with Ansible.

Some folks don't like YAML all that well, and I can understand where they are coming from. I wish Ansible provided a good Python API so that playbooks could be written in Python easier. But there is a project called PyInfra that is trying to do something similiar to Ansible, using Python as the configuration language. https://pyinfra.com/ It is still pretty new so not got nearly as many modules written for it yet.

The implementations and users page mentioned above:

https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark/blob/master/users.md

Starlark: Starlark is a language for describing build transformations, inspired by Python, but with features that make it suitable for embedding in software like Bazel. It can be used for configuration generation due to its capability for deterministic evaluation and expressing complex build transformations.

In the design of Starlark (https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark), I often had to push back against new feature requests to keep the language simple. I explicitly listed simplicity as a design goal.i

Of course, the scope of the language is not the same as general purpose languages, but there's always pressure from the users to add more things. I also think many people underestimate the cost of adding new features: it's not just about adding the code in every compiler/interpreter, specifying every edge-case in a spec, updating all the tooling for the language and writing tutorials; it's also a cost on everyone who will have to read any of the code.

one of the benefits of starlark (unlike python): "Starlark is suitable for use in highly parallel applications. An application may invoke the Starlark interpreter concurrently from many threads, without the possibility of a data race, because shared data structures become immutable due to freezing." from https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark/blob/master/spec.md - it's not python, you can't do recursion (!) and it's more limited (you can't read a file in bazel, and parse it, you have to make this operation into the graph somehow)

You can do the same in Bazel which uses Starlark for its BUILD files. Starlark is a dialect of Python so it makes it super easy to work with.

Make sense. We do not use Python actually, the build language is starlark, which is the config lang used by bazel. https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark

Have you seen Starlark? It's not too far from that, but safer in a number of ways: https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark