---
title: Why not X?
---

There are a number of formats and approaches that can achieve more or
less the same purpose as StrictYAML. Below is a series of comparisons
with some of the more famous ones:

- [Why not use JSON Schema for validation?]()
- [What is wrong with TOML?]()
- [Why shouldn't I just use Python code for configuration?]()
- [Why not JSON5?]()
- [Why not JSON for simple configuration files?]()
- [Why avoid using environment variables as configuration?]()
- [Why not use XML for configuration or DSLs?]()
- [Why not use INI files?]()
- [Why not use the YAML 1.2 standard? - we don't need a new standard!]()
- [Why not use Python's schema library (or similar) for validation?]()
- [Why not HOCON?]()
- [Why not use SDLang?]()
- [Why not use kwalify with standard YAML to validate my YAML?]()


If you'd like to write or link to a rebuttal to any argument raised
here, feel free to raise a ticket.
---
title: Why not X?
---

There are a number of formats and approaches that can achieve more or
less the same purpose as StrictYAML. Below is a series of comparisons
with some of the more famous ones:

- [Why avoid using environment variables as configuration?]()
- [Why not HOCON?]()
- [Why not use INI files?]()
- [Why not use JSON Schema for validation?]()
- [Why not JSON for simple configuration files?]()
- [Why not JSON5?]()
- [Why not use the YAML 1.2 standard? - we don't need a new standard!]()
- [Why not use kwalify with standard YAML to validate my YAML?]()
- [Why not use Python's schema library (or similar) for validation?]()
- [Why not use SDLang?]()
- [What is wrong with TOML?]()
- [Why shouldn't I just use Python code for configuration?]()
- [Why not use XML for configuration or DSLs?]()


If you'd like to write or link to a rebuttal to any argument raised
here, feel free to raise a ticket.
REFACTOR : Made docs deterministic
REFACTOR : Made docs deterministic
