ytt VS starlark

YTT - YTT is a templating tool that understands YAML structure. It helps you easily configure complex software via reusable templates and user provided values using the Starlark language.

Adding https://carvel.dev/ytt/ to the list. I was happy using this tool as IMO it mixes good things from Helm and Kustomize, however the syntax is ugly and repelling my colleagues to have a closer look.

> Templating yaml is a terrible, terrible idea

I've had a good time using ytt: https://carvel.dev/ytt/. It implements language-aware templating, which is IMO the only reasonable way to do it.

`ytt` is part of the Carvel toolchain. https://carvel.dev/ytt/

I agree with you on `you will want to see just plain texts instead of a bunch of templating token with hidden logic.` Which is why I think https://carvel.dev/ytt/ would be great. We could generate these templates in pipelines, or we could just make it easier to maintain what we have.

For more advanced configuration management you might be interested in ytt ( https://carvel.dev/ytt/ ) which is a "yaml-aware" templating tool. it lets you do "patches" via an overlay mechanism to add or remove specific yaml blocks, and it also lets you use a simplified python dialect for more complicated logic. With ytt you would put your DNS IP into a "data values" file and then run ytt to render it into the configs before handing them off to the deployment tool. e.g. `ytt -f | kubectl apply`

I said this above as well: ytt (https://carvel.dev/ytt/) lets you embed starlark into valid yaml, among other cute tricks for managing biz-logic in configs.

Manifests are generated with ytt (https://carvel.dev/ytt/).

This is why you should consider https://carvel.dev/ytt/

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