Terraform should have remained stateless

Re:Terraform should have remained stateless by loxias on Saturday May 28, 2022 @12:05AM (#31537510)

Completely agree. Thanks for writing this up. Specifically because I've always thought this, but also don't value my opinion on the topic. I was first exposed to devops a few years ago, and as a result was learning docker, k8s, terraform, salt, &c. at the same time. (I hated it, and now I'm happy writing C++ again)

What I could never wrap my head around was why the heck the tools had to expose so much complexity. I want the description of my infrastructure to be a single, or set of text files, written preferably in JSON or YAML like everything else, and I want to run a command that behaves in the same way as GNU make.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Terraform should have remained stateless by NovemberWhiskey on Saturday May 28, 2022 @01:06AM (#31537760)

That seems like madness to me: YAML? Really? Is this some variant of K8s Stockholm syndrome?

It's always seemed to me that one of the virtues of Terraform was that the language was just declarative, and rich enough to express what you needed without becoming a Turing tarpit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Terraform should have remained stateless by x86_64Ubuntu on Saturday May 28, 2022 @12:13AM (#31537557)

>... want the description of my infrastructure to be a single, or set of text files, written preferably in JSON or YAML

That's CloudFormation, there is a reason that people migrated away from it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Terraform should have remained stateless by knckl on Saturday May 28, 2022 @12:17AM (#31537572)

Have you tried Pulumi? You can use TypeScript, Python, C#, Go, Java, YAML etc to define your infrastructure.

Almost all Terraform providers are ported to Pulumi or have Pulumi-native alternatives.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Terraform should have remained stateless by nathants on Saturday May 28, 2022 @02:40AM (#31538119)

this is the ideal approach for most scenarios. fewer knobs, simpler tooling.

[ Parent | on HN ]