For those expecting something else (Almquist shell)

https://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-release-10/src/bin/...

https://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-release-10/src/bin/...

This looks like a well-written introduction, but I’m wondering if using Ash would be a good idea.

I found an article about the philosophy of Ash. [1] The basic idea is to extract a lot of details to configuration and make the code data-driven.

This isn’t necessarily bad, but the result looks superficially like Gradle or Nix, with configuration being done using obscure scripting languages. I hope it doesn’t inherit their flaws?

To be cynical about it, “declarative syntax” is just a way to say that it acts as a config file. There is often no reasoning about config files. You just need to read what all the config parameters do, and if the documentation is inadequate, you need to read the source code of the program that ingests the config file, or perhaps do experiments. In bad cases this can be like attempting to read an interpreter or compiler to understand a programming language. It’s how you get systems that are notoriously difficult to understand.

How does Ash avoid that?

[1] https://zachdaniel.dev/incremental-declarative-design

I have been writing Elixir full time since 2018, and I quite like Phoenix, warts and all.

Can a willing reader pitch Ash Framework in a few lines for me please? What is its killer feature vs Phoenix? Also, is it compatible, or does it have an alternative to LiveView?

Really curious about experiences of people that use or used Ash in production. Are there any gotchas or is it really easy to work with?

It's an elixir framework, not the the shell in Alpine Linux ...