News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by vbernat on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @02:20PM (#46222266)
It's odd to always say "Hashicorp, an IBM company". Looks like they want to assign blame.

I did try Pulumi a while back, but the compatibility with Terraform modules was not great, so I've switched to CDKTF, which can handle unmodified modules. Dunno if I'll switch back to Pulumi or just use OpenTofu directly.

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by jjice on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @02:30PM (#46222421)
> It's odd to always say "Hashicorp, an IBM company". Looks like they want to assign blame.

All their branding does this now, including the HashiCorp logo on their website [0]. There's gotta be a name for this specific branding pattern, but I don't know it.

[0] https://www.hashicorp.com/en/blog/products/terraform

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by huddo121 on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @06:16PM (#46225404)
Metastatized branding
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by stingraycharles on Thursday December 11, 2025 @02:20AM (#46228593)
It’s endorsed branding. Basically when a parent company “endorses” its subsidiaries’ brands, but keep their own name (as opposed to renaming everything to IBM, like eg Google would do).
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by packetlost on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:25PM (#46223255)
I have absolutely nothing good to say about Pulumi. Stay far, far away.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by mfornasa on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:36PM (#46223420)
please expand on this, I am interested (for real!)
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by jen20 on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:29PM (#46223320)
Strange, I have a lot of good things to say about both it and Terraform.

Probably some specifics might be more useful there...

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by weakfish on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @05:32PM (#46224880)
Why? I’ve had nothing but good experiences, but I don’t run it and the team that does is extremely competent
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by willio58 on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @06:53PM (#46225789)
My experience with Pulumi is you can write bad pulumi code and good pulumi code and just like everything else, it's easy to end up in a codebase where one poor soul was tasked with writing it all and they didn't do the best job with it.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by here2learnstuff on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @10:04PM (#46227175)
Please expand on your experiences, because I've had great luck with Pulumi at my company since October 2021. No engineer liked HCL, our demographic was engineers who were familiar with programming languages who wanted to self service basic infrastructure (AWS SecretsManager, IRSA roles, Databricks Service Principals, etc). We were pretty easily able to shim in a RunAtlantis inspired system that displayed previews that required explicit approval when a PR was raised, performed apply on merge to main, and ran drift checks periodically.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by lokar on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @11:00PM (#46227492)
For me, the ideal is each team owns its own config/lifecycle mgmt, and does it in the language they wrote the rest of the system in.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by Garlef on Thursday December 11, 2025 @12:24PM (#46234250)
Their stack builds a lot of abstractions on top of each other and this works only well as long as you don't deviate from the beaten path.

One example:

You can't really build custom TS providers for AWS resources.

Why?

Because this feature is built using the compilation magic that makes inline lambdas work.

But the compilation step omits the AWS SDKs since these are present in a lambda anyways. So you can't use the AWS SDK in custom providers.

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by lighthazard on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @11:00PM (#46227494)
Running SST with Pulumi and it's been a great experience. Infrastructure and maintenance has been pleasant and SST's pre-fabs really make things easy to spin up resources.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by katdork on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @11:28PM (#46227666)
My experience is that by stealing providers from Terraform, they failed to properly handle statically typed languages (Go) with certain providers (HCloud); I had problems with their ID type and had to abandon my Pulumi setup.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by purpleidea on Thursday December 11, 2025 @01:01AM (#46228186)
Have a look at https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/ and tell me what you think. We don't have enough docs though. Tough being an open source thing that you want to keep open.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by selkin on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:32PM (#46223355)
> It's odd to always say "Hashicorp, an IBM company". Looks like they want to assign blame.

Or it's legal trying to preempt a risk.

If it was the author just wanting to point at IBM, they'd mention it just once or twice, but using that awkward phrase throughout the text makes me think it was an edit mandated by a careful lawyer.

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by smithcoin on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @02:28PM (#46222386)
We use OpenTofu it’s pretty seamless
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by Hamuko on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:07PM (#46222999)
Does it do ephemeral values yet?
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by cube2222 on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:15PM (#46223110)
Yep, as of yesterday’s 1.11 release it’s supported!

That also includes a new “enabled” meta argument, so you don’t have to hack around conditional resources with count = 0.

[0]: https://opentofu.org/blog/opentofu-1-11-0/

Disclaimer: affiliated with the project

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by lijok on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:24PM (#46223239)
How do you migrate from count/for_each to `enabled` ?
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by cube2222 on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:33PM (#46223370)
You can just switch from `count = 1` to `enabled = true` (or vice-versa, works back-and-forth) for a resource and tofu will automatically move it next time you apply.

It's pretty seamless.

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by lijok on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:41PM (#46223483)
Amazing. Good work !
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by joombaga on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @04:31PM (#46224171)
That's cool! We'll still need to change all of the references to `resource[0]`, right? Or does tofu obviate that need as well?
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by cube2222 on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @05:41PM (#46224994)
I’m not sure I understand. You refer to the conditional resource fields normally - without list indices. You just have to make sure the object isn’t null.

There’s some samples in the docs[0] on safe access patterns!

[0]: https://opentofu.org/docs/language/meta-arguments/enabled/

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by darkwater on Thursday December 11, 2025 @04:47AM (#46229439)
And you don't get the annoying array form for the resulting resource with the `enabled` syntax, right?

EDIT: Oh just realized the sibling asked the same, but the doc doesn't state that clearly, although it seems to me that the doc implies that yeah, it doesn't use the array form anymore.

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by cube2222 on Thursday December 11, 2025 @12:56PM (#46234681)
Yes indeed! It does not use the annoying array form.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by darkwater on Friday December 12, 2025 @04:41AM (#46242461)
Worth switching to Opentofu only for this, then! I fuckin hate the count pattern for conditional present/not present that leads to an array of size == 1.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by Hamuko on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:57PM (#46223725)
Damn, might finally be able to use it. The lack of ephemeral values was a major blocker.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by benatkin on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @02:54PM (#46222796)
Now more will be using a combination of OpenTofu and Terraform, and there will probably be some tacit endorsement of OpenTofu by Hashicorp folks in their communication with those who are using both. Good to see!
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by atonse on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @02:30PM (#46222408)
I was thinking the same thing about the "an IBM company". My guess is that it's a lazy find/replace.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by Pet_Ant on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:45PM (#46223558)
I assume it's a matter of branding and making IBM look more modern by associating with the Hashicorp brand.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by cr125rider on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @04:42PM (#46224284)
It’s one thing to say it once but 3 times in the same paragraph seems weird for sure!
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by firesteelrain on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @03:11PM (#46223062)
It’s how Red Hat identifies themselves too
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by viraptor on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @08:00PM (#46226319)
It's common when corps buy large enough companies that they don't want to kill the original brand. That's why you get hotels like "(something) by Hilton".
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by richardfontana on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @08:53PM (#46226701)
Do you mean Red Hat identifies itself using the phrase "Red Hat, an IBM Company"? Because I don't see any use of this on redhat.com (including that website's corporate "about" content) and if any Red Hatters are using this phrasing (I'm a current Red Hat employee) I haven't been aware of it.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by firesteelrain on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @09:52PM (#46227099)
I have seen it in several articles. (I don’t work for HashiCorp or Red Hat subsidiaries so no idea what is said or done inside those subs)

1. https://business.adobe.com/customer-success-stories/red-hat....

2. https://www.openpr.com/news/4100338/linux-operating-system-m...

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by richardfontana on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @11:08PM (#46227541)
You said "It’s how Red Hat identifies themselves too" but those two articles are not by Red Hat. So ... it's not how Red Hat identifies themselves, though it seems to be how Hashicorp identifies themselves.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by pretext-1 on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @06:04PM (#46225277)
I was recently working for a company which got acquired by IBM and we had to do it too. It’s an IBM thing. I bet most people at HashiCorp hate it, at least that was the case for us.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by dandellion on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @08:02PM (#46226337)
Makes IBM look really bad. Do they also force people to bow when the CEO of IBM enters the room, and address them as sir or your highness?
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by miki123211 on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @08:28PM (#46226556)
They used to have their employees sign songs praising the company...

Granted, that was in the 1930s or something, but still.

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by abhiyerra on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @10:25PM (#46227292)
I remember it being a part of the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley and thought it couldn’t be true. But apparently it was.

https://youtu.be/VyQEbLx6AEY?si=CwhqHQEdFGCsE33l

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by dandellion on Thursday December 11, 2025 @10:16AM (#46232407)
Wow, the truth is stranger than fiction.
Re:The future of Terraform CDK by nsonha on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @11:37PM (#46227719)
"Hashicorp, an IBM company"

Common sense would be IBM mandating that branding, as opposed to Hashicorp.

Re:The future of Terraform CDK by roboben on Thursday December 11, 2025 @12:51AM (#46228114)
They should have renamed it first to HashiCorp, an IBM Company CDK, then shut it down