yaml-rust VS strictyaml

Either https://github.com/chyh1990/yaml-rust or https://github.com/dtolnay/serde-yaml for parsing the YAML config file that markdownlint uses

Here's the Rust code so far -- the commented portions are my intent via pseudocode. This is part of an implementation where there's a _yaml_hash member that points to yaml_rust's underlying LinkedHashMap. (Also using anyhow's bail! and Result.)

The first thing I did was to find the crate yaml-rust and it seems it isn't really maintained anymore. It has not been updated in a year and there's a lot of PR's and unresolved issues, the CI is broken... So here is my open ended question.

Currently, my main concern with YAML is that, by the spec, comments are not attached to a particular node (see https://yaml.org/spec/1.2/spec.html#id2767100). As a result, a lot of YAML parsers (like https://github.com/yaml/libyaml and https://github.com/chyh1990/yaml-rust) only filter out the comments during the parsing phase. This makes it less than ideal for a use-case where the configuration file is expected to be modified by both programs and humans.

TOML makes it more trivial to associate comments with a node. This is mainly because the language is simpler though, as the spec is not explicit about that (https://github.com/chyh1990/yaml-rust).

NestedText already is the way I use YAML; everything is intepreted as a string. I have some trust in my YAML parser to not mangle most strings. I could use NestedText, but users would be unfamiliar with it, and IIRC the only parsers are in Python. But then I could use StrictYaml too https://github.com/crdoconnor/strictyaml

you can stick to a subset of YAML syntax (e.g. strictYAML)

YAML stands for "YAML Ain’t Markup Language" - this is known as a recursive acronym. YAML is often used for writing configuration files. It’s human readable, easy to understand and can be used with other programming languages. Although YAML is commonly used in many disciplines, it has received criticism on the amoutn of whitespace .yml files have, difficulty in editing, and complexity of the standard. Despite the criticism, properly using YAML ensures that you can reproduce the results of a project and makes sure that the virtual environment packages play nicely with system packages. (If you're looking for another way to share environments there are other alternatives to YAML which include StrictYAML (a type-safe YAML parser) and NestedText)

The example you linked provides this as an example of a YAML document that he wants his format to support.

That safe subset exists and is implemented in a number of languages. It is called strict-yaml: https://hitchdev.com/strictyaml/

StrictYAML\ (33 comments)

To me those are in the category of "nice to have", and the problem is that every developer has different preferences for these [1] [2]. But the main features of StrictYaml, like supporting comments and less syntactic noise, I think are pretty uncontroversial, and perhaps it's worth it to get people to switch over for those alone. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be a significant enough improvement over JSON, and I'd say those two features are more than enough

[1]: https://github.com/crdoconnor/strictyaml/issues/37

[2]: https://github.com/crdoconnor/strictyaml/issues/38