Hm, I haven't seen these issues personally. We only have one `.env` file and it's just for local secrets. Configuration emphatically does not go in `.env` and ideally is in docker compose and defined in code (we use Pydantic Settings).
Over at varlock (https://varlock.dev -- also free, open source), we agree that .env as we know it is full of problems. But instead of abandoning it, we evolved it. We replace your .env.example with a .env.schema - using decorator style comments to add schema info, and functions to load and compose values.
A big difference between our tool and many other similar tools is that we combine the schema and value setting into one surface, with a way of merging many definitions together, much like cuelang - but in a way that feels more intuitive. It's extremely flexible, and can even do credential brokering for untrusted workloads.
I've been enjoying the secretspec content lately, and watching it evolve :)
Seconded. I've also had great luck with the same author's fnox secret manager, especially because you can tell it to fetch some secrets from the user's laptop's OS keychain, and some out of 1Password, and some out of AWS KMS, and some out of [probably your own favorite provider (https://fnox.jdx.dev/providers/overview)].
fnox is mostly a copy of secretspec (and it's good to have one!),
so you'll find the same kind of support in both. I wish instead we'd collaborate with Jeff, but oh well.
The difference is that we're providing an interface for applications to build with, with 8 SDKs available so you can have first-class support for secrets whatever you're bulding. I do hope fnox copies that too!
You keep saying that but I disagree strongly. Having looked at both fnox and secretspec, there are some obvious similarities because they're both in the same space, interacting with many of the same tools, and there are only so many ways to declaratively state "set the FOO variable with the 'my_secret_key' value out of the Bar provider".
Those inherent similarities aside, I don't see it. They don't seem to have a lot in common as far as design or implementation or configuration.
I'm sure there are many better alternatives to .env, but its ubiquity and support across various tools makes it super convenient.
I'm using 1Password's .env integration[1] and although the UX is a bit clunky, I really like it. My API keys are secure, tools that ordinarily support
.env just work and there's a team-sharing feature too (although I'm yet to use it). It's pretty neat.
But secrets are a kind of configuration, right? I agree they should be kept separate from non-secret config; ideally non-secret configuration can be committed to your codebase somewhere depending on the environment it's running in.
pydantic-settings is not limited to loading from config files. It is easy to populate a settings model from environment variables, for example. With a little bit of glue code it could load from the secretspec sdk.
I hate that it's hidden too. There's no reason for it to be hidden and arguably some reason for it not to be hidden.
I did discover one reason for it not to be just "env" though, which surprised me, which is that "source env" will yield "bash: source: /usr/bin/env: cannot execute binary file". I did not expect the source command to use the $PATH to resolve the filename. Probably some minor security issues that can result from that out there in the world. Arguably anyone loading it should use "source ./.env" or equivalent, with full path.
It's documented in the bash manual, of course. But it is rather complicated as to when it will and will not use $PATH.
Claude, find a key underpinning of most development workflows, then make a product to disrupt (and eventually SaaSify/enshitify) it. Finally, write a convincing ad disguised blog post, and purchase a fancy domain. Here's my credit card.
While there are absolutely a million of these env tools popping up which are total vibe-coded slop, secretspec is not one of them. It's from the creator of https://devenv.sh and has been around for a while.
Hm, I haven't seen these issues personally. We only have one `.env` file and it's just for local secrets. Configuration emphatically does not go in `.env` and ideally is in docker compose and defined in code (we use Pydantic Settings).
Yeah, this is the way. I assumed that was fairly standard at this point.
Over at varlock (https://varlock.dev -- also free, open source), we agree that .env as we know it is full of problems. But instead of abandoning it, we evolved it. We replace your .env.example with a .env.schema - using decorator style comments to add schema info, and functions to load and compose values.
A big difference between our tool and many other similar tools is that we combine the schema and value setting into one surface, with a way of merging many definitions together, much like cuelang - but in a way that feels more intuitive. It's extremely flexible, and can even do credential brokering for untrusted workloads.
I've been enjoying the secretspec content lately, and watching it evolve :)
It's too bad they call background services "agents" now instead of daemons like they used to, because your slogan could be Secrets for daemons
Varlock is clever. Sub string types for .envs pretty cool, why not
Also mise: https://mise.jdx.dev/environments/
Seconded. I've also had great luck with the same author's fnox secret manager, especially because you can tell it to fetch some secrets from the user's laptop's OS keychain, and some out of 1Password, and some out of AWS KMS, and some out of [probably your own favorite provider (https://fnox.jdx.dev/providers/overview)].
fnox is mostly a copy of secretspec (and it's good to have one!), so you'll find the same kind of support in both. I wish instead we'd collaborate with Jeff, but oh well.
The difference is that we're providing an interface for applications to build with, with 8 SDKs available so you can have first-class support for secrets whatever you're bulding. I do hope fnox copies that too!
You keep saying that but I disagree strongly. Having looked at both fnox and secretspec, there are some obvious similarities because they're both in the same space, interacting with many of the same tools, and there are only so many ways to declaratively state "set the FOO variable with the 'my_secret_key' value out of the Bar provider".
Those inherent similarities aside, I don't see it. They don't seem to have a lot in common as far as design or implementation or configuration.
I'm sure there are many better alternatives to .env, but its ubiquity and support across various tools makes it super convenient.
I'm using 1Password's .env integration[1] and although the UX is a bit clunky, I really like it. My API keys are secure, tools that ordinarily support .env just work and there's a team-sharing feature too (although I'm yet to use it). It's pretty neat.
[1] https://www.1password.dev/environments
I use Pydantic Settings for this, would be nice to see a comparison to that. I do like the idea of keeping this in a configuration file.
Two things:
- Secrets don't belong in config https://secretspec.dev/blog/secrets-dont-belong-in-config/
- You want to have flexibility of choosing between any secrets provider: https://secretspec.dev/blog/but-i-use-sops/
But secrets are a kind of configuration, right? I agree they should be kept separate from non-secret config; ideally non-secret configuration can be committed to your codebase somewhere depending on the environment it's running in.
pydantic-settings is not limited to loading from config files. It is easy to populate a settings model from environment variables, for example. With a little bit of glue code it could load from the secretspec sdk.
Yeah Pydantic Settings is pretty nice
> Where .env Went Wrong
start with making it a dot file. Why would you want to hide the fact your app was using loaded environment variables?
The fact that it's hidden means it doesn't get commited by accident in most git repos unless explicitly added or configured that way.
there shouldn't be any secrets in it so committing it shouldn't be a huge problem.
I hate that it's hidden too. There's no reason for it to be hidden and arguably some reason for it not to be hidden.
I did discover one reason for it not to be just "env" though, which surprised me, which is that "source env" will yield "bash: source: /usr/bin/env: cannot execute binary file". I did not expect the source command to use the $PATH to resolve the filename. Probably some minor security issues that can result from that out there in the world. Arguably anyone loading it should use "source ./.env" or equivalent, with full path.
It's documented in the bash manual, of course. But it is rather complicated as to when it will and will not use $PATH.
You can easily use comments in the file for guidance, eliminating half your complaints
Also: https://varlock.dev/
One could also... Not jump on the bandwagon?
(Am I getting thrown out the window now? :)
The Doppler effect on your last words seems to confirm you just did.
Claude, find a key underpinning of most development workflows, then make a product to disrupt (and eventually SaaSify/enshitify) it. Finally, write a convincing ad disguised blog post, and purchase a fancy domain. Here's my credit card.
Don't take the black pill <3
While there are absolutely a million of these env tools popping up which are total vibe-coded slop, secretspec is not one of them. It's from the creator of https://devenv.sh and has been around for a while.
the blog post is absolute slop though
<3