Why is typeless considered something good?
replies(2):
In my opinion, JSON works well for data interchange, but it's overused for configuration, it's not localization-friendly, and it's too syntactically noisy. INI is simple but lacks hierarchical structures and doesn't have a formal specification. Confetti is intended to bridge the gap.
I aim to keep Confetti simple and minimalistic, while encouraging others to extend it. Think of it like Markdown for configuration files: there's a core specification, but your welcome to create your own variations that suit your needs.
So if the config format has its own type system you then have to convert between config types and language types
If the config type doesn't map exactly onto the target lang type you either ignore it and accept some values won't round-trip cleanly or without error, or you fall back to using strings (e.g. various possible integer type sizes, signed/unsigned etc, or decimal values via JSON)
Not saying it's always the right choice, but I can see why having lowest common denominator stringly-typed values as the config format can be seen as a feature allowing you to define the type system that the config will be parsed under to suit each particular application
Because when saying defaulting back to string and thatfor ignoring typing, wouldnt that just be the same as beeing typeless? Therefor doesn't every format support string therefor supporting typeless?
Also, in how many cases do you need to parse the same configuration in multiple different languages?
Im not saying its not useful - i just try to get the use case for this arguments.