News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.