On Saturday, 24 May 2014 at 17:30:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 5/24/2014 12:42 PM, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
Original thread : http://forum.rejectedsoftware.
com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/
Summary by Sonke:
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-
based-package-format-draft
Thanks.
Personally, I don't find the arguments for switching
convincing. Perhaps
moving to an extended JSON that supports comments and other
niceties, but
moving to an entirely new format seems excessive. The nice
thing about
JSON is that it is commonly used everywhere, making dub easy
to approach
and easy to write tooling for - even after a switch to SDL as
the primary
format, I can see many folks and tooling continuing to use
JSON. Without
removal of JSON support you are stuck supporting two formats...
tl;dr I think it is a bad idea.
Nobody has said anything about removing JSON support. It's been
stated that JSON support is *staying* as an option. SDL will
merely be the recommended format.
Sayeth Sonke:
"The plan is to keep full support for the JSON based package
description and still use it for machine-to-machine
communication, but at the same time add the new format as the
preferred way for developers to write."
-
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-based-package-format-draft
That is not the issue.
The issue is with tools, e.g. an IDE or script wanting to support
Dub will have to have a dependency on an SDL parser (while pretty
much every language has a JSON parser in its standard lib and if
not a parser can be written in a few hours - on the other hand
SDL is very uncommon at the moment).
So you can't e.g. write a quick python util script without
requiring an external library.
