My biggest concern with this is that, even more than the current “The non-repetitive alternative to YAML,” it seems to extremely limit Dhall’s scope/usecases to the unfamiliar person (who is presumably what this is being written for). If I had stumbled across “A lifesaver for templating YAML” I would never have given Dhall a second look, because I don’t need to template YAML, nor will I ever. Perhaps “template YAML, JSON, or even [plain]text!” or something?
Plus this becomes kind of confusing when the next line says “you can think of as: JSON + functions + types + imports.” Is it YAML? Is it JSON? Something else? If I see something sold solely for the purpose of “templating YAML,” JSON-style syntax is not what I’m going to immediately expect.
On an unrelated note, would it be worth making “Dhall is a programmable configuration language” to something like “Dhall is a programmable, type-safe configuration language?” I think type-safety is a selling point, since it essentially does away with the need for schema/validation.
Just my two cents as someone who recently stumbled across the language.