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.
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
> 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.
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".
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.
Being able to inherit from Ingress and add a parameter of say public=True/False and then it change annotations, middleware, etc and then being able to re-use that across 100s of stacks is very powerful. DRY is not something HCL is good at.
That’s a real shame. It seems like Pulumi is the only alternative for internal DSLs for IaaC? I always found HCL to be quite terrible, slowly becoming less painful, but not really refactoring-friendly.
Terraform CDK had promise as a blessed infrastructure-as-actual-code solution from the official maintainer of Terraform, so easier to sell internally rather than something from a new vendor like Pulumi. I feel sorry for those teams who have migrated to TF CDK.
Sad to see it go. The philosophy of CDK has been to offer a shared ecosystem between IaC, backend code and frontend code, allowing to share configuration, data structures and libraries between all of them. It has made development more unified and have less redundancy and manual work. Personally I don't want to repeat some stuff in a special Terraform language, if I can find a way to manage the whole application in TypeScript.
IaaC code is one of those use cases just throwing LLM is painful for a refactor.
In my experience claude/codex to wrangle CDK constructs be complicated, it frequently hallucinates constructs that simply do not exist, options that are not supported etc.
While they can generate IaaC component mostly okay and these problems can be managed, Iterations can take a lot of time, each checkpoint, goes the deploy/ rollback cycles in CF. CloudFormation is also not particularly fast, other IaaC frameworks are not that different.
Running an agent to iterate until it gets it right is just more difficult with IaaC refactor projects. Hallucinations, stuck loops and other issues, can quickly run the infra bill up not to mention security.
Exactly. It's just so much cleaner to do it in the Cloud provider's native tooling. The impedance mismatch from Cloud-agnostic abstractions always just makes thing shitty enough that in the long run you spend more time dealing with weird edge cases.
Besides, actual full-scale Cloud migrations are exceedingly rare.
Not picking on you personally but having had this conversation many times over many years with many clients I find it confounding. Oftentimes TF itself was heavily promoted as a way of "avoiding lock in".
Well guess what? Now you're locked-in to IBM, whose motivations may not be perfectly aligned to you goals of simply and efficiently using your cloud provider of choice to deliver your business outcomes.
What we refer to as lock-in is simply an expression of risk, with one axis being the cost of getting off $solution and the other being the likelihood of needing to do so. Having stepped through this exercise a few times, the cost of rewriting your e.g. AWS API Gateway + Lambda + SQS + RDS + CloudWatch etc architecture invariably vastly dwarfed the cost of changing the IaC language it is expressed in.
Anytime you feel the urge to overbuild on a cloud provider's services, stop, and do a really rigorous cost/benefit analysis. If you truly have unique drivers the data should tell the story.
I made https://github.com/andrewbaxter/terrars ! It's great! You get more benefits if you're in a Rust project (obviously) but it has some things that make it a good alternative anywhere:
- More accurate types/type safety than the CDK (for static feedback on required parameters, etc)
- No CLI required - just plain Rust (provider definitions can be published as normal rust packages so you don't have to generate them yourselves, and I've published a bunch of common ones - docker, aws, etc)
- Simpler: Terraform CDK had this crazy flow where it (go code) generated typescript code then used some transpiler to generate target language code. The output wasn't pretty, and there were bugs. Your project directory would get filled with boilerplate generated files.
It generates tf json files and has a fairly safe way for handling variable interpolation and escapes - I haven't hit any weird bugs with it.
Hm, we have a few very repetitive terraform projects to setup structured infrastructure clusters. For those, we just use ansible with a bunch of templating to generate a configurable, HCL-based terraform module and version that.
It's a bit of an "Caveman solve problem with rock" approach, but for very regular projects it's great. A new cluster is some group vars, larger changes to the structures can be easily reviewed - and if you really really have to, you can also just modify the generated code by hand to fix something your generation code can't deal with right now.
The value of CDK was always that it allowed you to write in a fully orthogonal language rather than the poor pseudo-language of hcl.
When writing stacks you need normal language features: loops, yes, but also if statements, reuse (functions), being able to do stuff like complex string parsing and re-formatting, etc etc.
HCL supports loops, modules can be kind-of used as functions with lots of footguns, there are awful hacks for some other things, and some stuff just couldn't be done.
I'll be honest Pulumi is pretty cool but I'm a little worried by how high on the stack it is. I wonder if the same thing won't happen to them that's happening to CDKTF here.
Terraform is ugly but it works well enough for me and seems ingrained enough to be durable to this kind of thing (i.e. I bet for sure the community would pick it up (I wish I could say that I'm part of that community but I can't say I use it quite that often))
Not gonna lie Terranix has been working great for us, all our configuration is in Nix files anyway so it's so easy to just pass stuff in rather than using Tf variables etc
Readit News
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.
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
Deleted Comment
Probably some specifics might be more useful there...
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.
Common sense would be IBM mandating that branding, as opposed to Hashicorp.
HCL just does not have the modularity and expressiveness that Python, or other languages CDKTF supports.
I guess I'll spend another year migrating to Pulumi now..
I also find refactorings considerably harder in a declarative language, since configurations have a rigid structure.
That seems like rather short notice.
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46192130#46198058
Terraform CDK had promise as a blessed infrastructure-as-actual-code solution from the official maintainer of Terraform, so easier to sell internally rather than something from a new vendor like Pulumi. I feel sorry for those teams who have migrated to TF CDK.
Internal vs external DSLs explained in the middle of this page: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/DslQandA.html
Dead Comment
If I really need to migrate off of AWS at some point I'll throw an LLM at it.
In my experience claude/codex to wrangle CDK constructs be complicated, it frequently hallucinates constructs that simply do not exist, options that are not supported etc.
While they can generate IaaC component mostly okay and these problems can be managed, Iterations can take a lot of time, each checkpoint, goes the deploy/ rollback cycles in CF. CloudFormation is also not particularly fast, other IaaC frameworks are not that different.
Running an agent to iterate until it gets it right is just more difficult with IaaC refactor projects. Hallucinations, stuck loops and other issues, can quickly run the infra bill up not to mention security.
Besides, actual full-scale Cloud migrations are exceedingly rare.
Not picking on you personally but having had this conversation many times over many years with many clients I find it confounding. Oftentimes TF itself was heavily promoted as a way of "avoiding lock in".
Well guess what? Now you're locked-in to IBM, whose motivations may not be perfectly aligned to you goals of simply and efficiently using your cloud provider of choice to deliver your business outcomes.
What we refer to as lock-in is simply an expression of risk, with one axis being the cost of getting off $solution and the other being the likelihood of needing to do so. Having stepped through this exercise a few times, the cost of rewriting your e.g. AWS API Gateway + Lambda + SQS + RDS + CloudWatch etc architecture invariably vastly dwarfed the cost of changing the IaC language it is expressed in.
Anytime you feel the urge to overbuild on a cloud provider's services, stop, and do a really rigorous cost/benefit analysis. If you truly have unique drivers the data should tell the story.
- More accurate types/type safety than the CDK (for static feedback on required parameters, etc)
- No CLI required - just plain Rust (provider definitions can be published as normal rust packages so you don't have to generate them yourselves, and I've published a bunch of common ones - docker, aws, etc)
- Simpler: Terraform CDK had this crazy flow where it (go code) generated typescript code then used some transpiler to generate target language code. The output wasn't pretty, and there were bugs. Your project directory would get filled with boilerplate generated files.
It generates tf json files and has a fairly safe way for handling variable interpolation and escapes - I haven't hit any weird bugs with it.
It's a bit of an "Caveman solve problem with rock" approach, but for very regular projects it's great. A new cluster is some group vars, larger changes to the structures can be easily reviewed - and if you really really have to, you can also just modify the generated code by hand to fix something your generation code can't deal with right now.
When writing stacks you need normal language features: loops, yes, but also if statements, reuse (functions), being able to do stuff like complex string parsing and re-formatting, etc etc.
HCL supports loops, modules can be kind-of used as functions with lots of footguns, there are awful hacks for some other things, and some stuff just couldn't be done.
Deleted Comment
Terraform is ugly but it works well enough for me and seems ingrained enough to be durable to this kind of thing (i.e. I bet for sure the community would pick it up (I wish I could say that I'm part of that community but I can't say I use it quite that often))