Linux

Turing Complete Configuration

• more extensible
• tend to be heavier
• harder to provide detailed error messages
• more difficult for new users

Data Based Configuration

• easier to use
• easier to provide documentation
• lighter to embed
• more limited usecases

For stuff like, say, configuring all of your systems and programs in one file, actual programming languages are really useful. coughnixcough

I've become addicted to script-configured window managers. I won't even try ones that aren't, anymore.

Bash is a scripting language, so it qualifies per your description, but the main advantage is that anything you can do in the config, you can do on the CLI: these WMs also have first-class CLI tooling, a consequence of CLI-first design. All configuration is runtime adaptable, and although auto config reloading can get you there, it's fantastic to be able to change a configuration without it having to be persisted in a file.

Seriously, next to tiling, scripted configuration is the most important feature of a WM. I haven't encountered it outside of WMs very often, but for long running processes, it's a great design.

Apart from text editors/IDEs I don't really see the use for it. I think it is not practical unless all your users are both power users and programmers, which basically boils down to developer tools.

scriptable configuration makes sense if you want to be able to extend or modify the program like with vim while data based configuration makes sense if your program is already extendable/configurable enough like with i3

I think the primary difference is that data based configuration is easier for software to modify and store.

You can also get the best of both worlds: https://cuelang.org/

it’s not just a json config file, it’s a schema that can be used to validate its input, and a library to load, validate based on said schema, and convert to-in memory representation with no extra code.

As long as it's not configured by GUI I'm grateful 🙏😔