Frustrated with AWS CloudFormation and CDK
228 sats \ 3 comments \ @abhishandy 7 May tech
SST.dev wrote an article recently about how AWS CDK and Cloudformation is a black box and working with them is so frustrating.
https://sst.dev/blog/moving-away-from-cdk.html
There is slow, as-in something is noticeably slow. And then there is “CloudFormation slow”.
I agree with this so much. AWS CDK and CloudFormation is just over-engineered BS. Makes me question the whole point of using cloud infrastructure.
write
preview
related posts
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @k00b 7 May
My understanding of Cloudformation is it predates all the other infra as code tools so it's just a legacy thing at this point, one Amazon will probably have a hard time switching away from. I never got too familiar with Terraform or the alternatives to form an opinion but I always thought they were using CFN underneath and it looks like that's not true:
If you are familiar with Terraform you might be wondering, isn’t Terraform like CloudFormation templates in that you write JSON or HCL. When you deploy these templates through the Terraform engine, it translates these to calls to the Terraform Go providers for those resources.
Do any of the other cloud providers do this infra as code thing better, having learned from Amazon?
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @031ef7d322 7 May
The provider model is fairly common. Some projects, like Pulumi (ew) even re-use terraform providers. Others, like Crossplane, have their own provider spec. A provider is basically an interface to a cloud provider API, so in theory it should be relatively easy to port one that’s already written for another tool.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @034b483ee7 8 May
I was impressed with Oracle Cloud Infrastructure. It has a full blown PowerShell module where one can fully automate any aspect desired. The other big plus is their free-forever service offering.
reply