CUE

“I use CUE as the deterministic abstraction layer and generate Go/TS from that”

“any of the ones you list are fine though and a vast improvement on using Go templates for it”

“It is useful of have them always complete and have deterministic evaluation.”

“CUE is actually nice and fun to use before any comparisions to existing config formats.”

“I do have CUE to help with the yamhell, but I may still prefer js/ts options”

“who uses cue (cuelang.org) for distributing and formalizing a set of skills/prompts”

“the docs and some of the libraries were a bit lacking”

“They work well when did to generate static config from some dynamic input generated by regular program.”

“it is the only one that lets you write schemas for arbitrary refinements”

“This makes trying out changes like `try { a: b?.c }` in isolation really nice”

“I'd say cue is nicer, but the tooling available is even less mature.”

“I've moved to CUE instead of a general purpose PL, to remain in the declarative space.”

“literate programming enabled examples with the help of CUE configs language”

“It's the deterministic NLP cousin of the stochastic LLM based on mathematically sound latticed-value logic”

“it should be used with CUE for improving literate programming for configs and guardrailing”

“the LLMs already know CUE because it has been around longer and it's in their training data”

“for me personally it's CUE, which none of these "yaml with extra steps" will ever match”

“which allows you to do first-class version compatibility modelling”

“have a CUE intermediate representation, then serialize to a folder of markdown files”

“CUE works with all of those languages, so it doesn't matter what the tools or others are using.”

“the language seems pretty awkward and hard to understand”

“It seems like it's really solving the 'code as configuration' problem properly”

“unification is very intuitive and whole model is one of the best (formalized!) ideas at _simplifying_ configs”

“I like CUE a lot. We use it pretty heavily for schema enforcement of CRDs.”

“it looked like it was too syntactically complex and unwieldy for them to edit”

“cue cmd is nice but it's not the reason to use CUE. The data parts are.”

“the loss of flexibility within a special-purpose language like CUE is enough for people to ask why not just bother writing the scripts”

“using CUE absolutely does not make sense at a small scale; just write your YAML”

“it's a really cool idea, one of those things that's simple enough to be intuitive but also really powerful”

“the number one complaint from our early users was having to learn CUE”

“CUE strikes a really nice balance between being primarily data description and not a Turing-complete language”

“nowadays they've made so many steps in the right direction that getting something going is far quicker!”

“I ended up opting for CUE and GitHub Actions, and I'm glad I did as it made everything much, much simpler”

“I would have abandoned it if I had not discovered Cue to generate and type check all of the yaml”

“CUE, Dhall, and Jsonnet are doing more or less the right thing, but they are a tad large.”

“You can do this with cue/flow, but have not turned it into a full CI system. The building blocks are there”

“the tooling just isn't there for much of what I need yet”

“I'm using CUE in front of TF & k8s, in part because I have workloads that need a bit of both and share config”

“CUE is the probably the best of the bunches for configs, including yours.”

“its ability to easily consume existing formats and export back to them, so upstream and downstream tools and workflows don't need to change”