Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually • Hacker News Board

Re: Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually

#71

Post by robertlagrant » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 10:58 AM UTC

danw1979 wrote: post #31

I think a majority of the rants about Terraform I read are written from the perspective of someone managing inherently ephemeral infrastructure - things that are easily disposed of and reprovisioned quickly . The author of such a critique is likely managing an application stack on top of an account that someone else has provided them, a platform team maybe. CDK probably works for you in this case. Now, if you belong…

For me Terraform's biggest strength is also its biggest source of pain: it can integrate all sorts of technologies under one relatively vendor-agnostic umbrella and enforce a standard workflow across a huge amount of change. However, that means any bug in any provider is sort of Terraform's fault, if only in the developer's mind.

Re: Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually

#72

Post by darkwater » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 11:47 AM UTC

groestl wrote: post #11

xena wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. It's mainly for k8s resources; but if you install operators like external-dns or something like crossplane into your cluster, you can manage infra too.

> into your cluster I guess the point is: what if you don't have a cluster.

And also: what manages the Kubernetes cluster lifecycle in the cloud provider, or on bare metal?

There is life before (and beyond) Kubernetes.

Re: Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually

#73

Post by imp0cat » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 12:12 PM UTC

voidfunc wrote: post #4

I ditched Terraform years ago and just interact with the raw cloud provider SDKs now. It's much easier to long-term evolve actual code and deal with weird edgecases that come up when you're not in beholden to the straight jacket that is configuration masquerading as code. Oh yea, and we can write tests for all that provisioning logic too.

And eventually, you end up with your own in-house Terraform.

Re: Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually

#74

Post by imp0cat » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 12:13 PM UTC

lorenzotenti wrote: post #54

Is this a yoke? _sorry_

Lol! There are some parts that read like one:

    "... write your infrastructure definitions in Go or Rust, compile it to WebAssembly, and then you take input and output Kubernetes manifests that get applied to the cluster."

Re: Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually

#75

Post by Kinrany » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 12:38 PM UTC

sepositus wrote: post #8

From the website: > New tools like CUE, jsonnette, PKL, and others have emerged to address some of the short comings of raw YAML configuration and templating. Inspiring new K8s package managers such as timoni. However it is yoke’s stance that these tools will always fall short of the safety, flexibility and power of building your packages from code. The never-ending debate continues between configuration languages an…

It will once traditional languages are good enough

Re: Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually

#76

Post by INTPenis » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 1:13 PM UTC

Who are these ops people that want to write golang and rust? It seems like a tiny niche. If you're that comfortable writing golang or rust then why not just become a developer?

I'm a lifelong ops person, since 2000, and I use Ansible or Terraform daily.

I often wanted to learn golang better but I just never had the motivation. I'm a mean Python scripter, I can write a system integration in hours, but there's something about compiled languages I just never could get into.

I'm saying this only because the whole point of yoke is to define your infrastructure in Golang so that you can add in the missing pieces with Golang. So that you're free to use Golang for anything other than the pre-defined infrastructure providers in Yoke, so you're now a Golang developer. Congrats.

Re: Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually

#77

Post by michaelmior » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 1:14 PM UTC

diggan wrote: post #63

kikimora wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. But doesn’t it brings a host of other issues? For example, I need to update instance RAM from 4 to 8 Gb but how do I know if the instance exists or should be created? I need to make a small change, how do I know what parts of my scripts to run?

> For example, I need to update instance RAM from 4 to 8 Gb but how do I know if the instance exists or should be created? let front_id = if instance_exists("front_balancer") { return fetch_instance("front_balancer").id } else { return create_new_instance("front_balancer", front_balancer_opts).id } Or however else you would manage that sort of thing in your favorite programming language. > I need to make a small chan…

> Either just re-run the parts you know you've changed (manually or based on git diffs)

This is exactly the sort of thing Terraform is designed to avoid because it can obviously get quite messy. Agreed that making things idempotent solves that problem, but it's not always obvious/easy how to do so.

Re: Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually

#78

Post by michaelmior » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 1:15 PM UTC

gorgoiler wrote: post #10

plmpsu wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you handling creating multiple resources in parallel? or rolling back changes after an unsuccessful run?

Not OP, but for rolling back we just… revert the change to the setup_k8s_stuff.py script ! In practice it’s a module that integrates with quite a large number of things in the monolith because that’s one of the advantages of Infrastructure as Actual Code : symbols and enums and functions that have meaningful semantics in your business logic are frequently useful in your infrastructure logic too. The Apples API runs o…

> revert the change to the setup_k8s_stuff.py script

What about resources that were created by the code you reverted?

Re: Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually

#79

Post by postpawl » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 1:15 PM UTC

INTPenis wrote: post #76

Who are these ops people that want to write golang and rust? It seems like a tiny niche. If you're that comfortable writing golang or rust then why not just become a developer? I'm a lifelong ops person, since 2000, and I use Ansible or Terraform daily. I often wanted to learn golang better but I just never had the motivation. I'm a mean Python scripter, I can write a system integration in hours, but there's somethin…

A lot of important devops tools like Kubernetes and Grafana are written in golang, and it’s often handy to be able to import their code to use in your own code to automate those things.

Re: Yoke: Infrastructure as code, but actually

#80

Post by INTPenis » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 1:18 PM UTC

postpawl wrote: post #79

INTPenis wrote: post #76

Who are these ops people that want to write golang and rust? It seems like a tiny niche. If you're that comfortable writing golang or rust then why not just become a developer? I'm a lifelong ops person, since 2000, and I use Ansible or Terraform daily. I often wanted to learn golang better but I just never had the motivation. I'm a mean Python scripter, I can write a system integration in hours, but there's somethin…

A lot of important devops tools like Kubernetes and Grafana are written in golang, and it’s often handy to be able to import their code to use in your own code to automate those things.

But again, you're now a developer.

And I'm asking who are these developers using IaC tooling? It seems to me like it was made for ops.

All power to you if you take on both roles, but that's a good way to get burned out. I'm a devops person so the devs can focus on just code, and I can focus on making the best and safest infrastructure for them to run their code in.