Yes I had the same question. Maybe I haven't worked at a big enough company but I cannot understand this paragraph:

> The point here is that while Terraform and similiar technologies have existed for the past decade, providing Ops and Infrastructure teams with the tools they need to cleanly document their infrastructure, application development teams have had access to no such tools in this time. This is what the emergence of IfC is all about.

What does a company structure look like where "application development teams" are not allowed to access the Terraform code? It seems like Nitric is a wrapper around Terraform, which is fine and I can see how that could be useful, but the framing of the article doesn't make any sense.

The article isn't discussing replacing Terraform or suggesting Terraform isn't for developers. It's stating that Nitric brings the ability to create executable documentation for Applications, the same way that Terraform does for Infrastructure provisioning.

Well, that was as clear as mud.

I consider myself a software developer and I use it. We have tooling like Tenable to help ensure we’re using least privilege and adhering to security and compliance standards.

I am also a developer and use it, though I’ve found that being a developer proficient with terraform (and general shell/ops/automation) gets me marked as the guy who most developers lean on to do IaC stuff.

And that’s because most devs I’ve worked with don’t like it and don’t want to learn it, some will outright show a disdain/disrespect for its difficulty because it’s “just” infrastructure which they culturally view as IT work. They want to believe it’s as easy as setting up their localhost or the toy app they deployed in an AWS intro course.

There are undoubtedly a smattering of developers who would take interest in something like this because they’d feel this makes it “real” coding like they’re comfortable with