Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 14:54:20 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: On 17/09/2016 2:48 AM, Chris wrote: On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 14:44:18 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote: When starting a project with `dub` you are given the choice between SDL and JSON. No need to worry: $ dub init

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On 17/09/2016 2:48 AM, Chris wrote: On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 14:44:18 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote: On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 11:54:56 UTC, Suliman wrote: Sönke Ludwig, really sorry. It's look my big mistake. I looked at SDL more detail, and this format is much better than JSON.

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 14:48:30 UTC, Chris wrote: Do we have a converter tool by now? SDL to JSON is available in the results of `dub describe` (in the "packages" array, usually the first item is the JSON for the SDL you describe).

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 11:54:56 UTC, Suliman wrote: Sönke Ludwig, really sorry. It's look my big mistake. I looked at SDL more detail, and this format is much better than JSON. I hope a lot of people is changed their position too. There is a superset of Json that could of been

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 14:44:18 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote: On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 11:54:56 UTC, Suliman wrote: Sönke Ludwig, really sorry. It's look my big mistake. I looked at SDL more detail, and this format is much better than JSON. I hope a lot of people is changed

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 10:17:02 UTC, Suliman wrote: I think that using SDL format was big mistake. Not only I do not want to spend time in learning yet another dead config format that now use only one project -- DUB. In time when DUB used json it was not perfect, but at last it was

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 11:54:56 UTC, Suliman wrote: Sönke Ludwig, really sorry. It's look my big mistake. I looked at SDL more detail, and this format is much better than JSON. I hope a lot of people is changed their position too. The main diff I see is that in JSON you can have

Re: I hate new DUB config format

Sönke Ludwig, really sorry. It's look my big mistake. I looked at SDL more detail, and this format is much better than JSON. I hope a lot of people is changed their position too.

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On 27/11/2015 12:33, Sönke Ludwig wrote: * dub describe does not provide information for all build configurations, only the default one. As such the IDE has to parse the json to find out all available configurations itself. (This is used in the DDT IDE to show a list of "Build Targets" in the

Re: I hate new DUB config format

Example: name =dedcpu author =Luis Panadero Guardeño author =Jin targetType =none license =BSD 3-clause description =DCPU-16 tools =and other staff subPackage name =lem1802 description =Visual LEM1802 font editor targetType =executable targetName =lem1802

Re: I hate new DUB config format

How about this format? https://github.com/nin-jin/tree.d

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Thursday, 3 December 2015 at 01:40:12 UTC, Matt Soucy wrote: Interestingly, bazel has D mentioned in its docs: http://bazel.io/docs/be/d.html Hah, yes! And Dub too, but they link to the json page...

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On 11/25/2015 06:53 AM, Suliman wrote: I find the SDLang format much cleaner to use than JSON But it's dead format! Nobody do not use it. JSON easy to read, there is a lot of it's checkers and formating tools. Yes, it's not perfect, but now it's _standard_. Personally I'd prefer yaml, because

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 16:15:04 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 11/25/2015 06:53 AM, Suliman wrote: I find the SDLang format much cleaner to use than JSON But it's dead format! Nobody do not use it. JSON easy to read, there is a lot of it's checkers and formating tools. Yes, it's

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 20:45:33 UTC, Idan Arye wrote: On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 16:15:04 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 11/25/2015 06:53 AM, Suliman wrote: I find the SDLang format much cleaner to use than JSON But it's dead format! Nobody do not use it. JSON easy to read,

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 20:45:33 UTC, Idan Arye wrote: On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 16:15:04 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: [...] The issue is not with humans reading and writing SDLang files - like you said, the syntax is not hard, and besides - the default should be enough for

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 22:57:31 UTC, CraigDillabaugh wrote: On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 20:45:33 UTC, Idan Arye wrote: On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 16:15:04 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: [...] The issue is not with humans reading and writing SDLang files - like you said,

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On 12/01/2015 07:22 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: > On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 12:07:51 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: >> I think you are meaning Bazel here. http://bazel.io/ >> >> I haven't had chance to play with it as yet, and it changes massively every >> day – though I suspect it is the

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On 12/02/2015 07:29 PM, Idan Arye wrote: > On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 22:57:31 UTC, CraigDillabaugh wrote: >> On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 20:45:33 UTC, Idan Arye wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 16:15:04 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: [...] >>> >>> The issue is not with

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On 11/30/2015 01:07 PM, Luis wrote: > name "dedcpu" > authors "Luis Panadero Guardeño" > targetType "none" > license "BSD 3-clause" > description "DCPU-16 tools" > > subPackage { >name "lem1802" >description "Visual LEM1802 font editor" >targetType "executable" >targetName

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 12:22:32 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: > On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 12:07:51 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: >> I think you are meaning Bazel here. http://bazel.io/ >> >> I haven't had chance to play with it as yet, and it changes massively >> every day – though I suspect it

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 17:24 +, Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > Bob's your uncle. Is Uncle Bob your uncle? PS Sorry for that, I am in a weird state just now. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 02:46:46 UTC, lobo wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 21:05:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 20:42:23 UTC, Suliman wrote: Should we try to implement yet another language for writing building config? No, I wasn't really

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 04:54:23 UTC, James Hofmann wrote: Although I admit to coming in late to a big bikeshed-fest, I have some opinions on configuration file formats from having seen younger, non-technical end users try to configure their own game servers. The support cost of

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 02:46:46 UTC, lobo wrote: Red started out as a Rebol 2 clone and last I checked (18 months ago) it was still is Rebol 2 compatible. http://www.red-lang.org/ Thanks!

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 05:39:26 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote: On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 04:54:23 UTC, James Hofmann wrote: [...] Sorry, I think that most of what you said made good sense, but I am a bit confused by the quoted bit. So you want the DUB config files written in

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 10:27:45 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 05:39:26 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote: On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 04:54:23 UTC, James Hofmann wrote: [...] Sorry, I think that most of what you said made good sense, but I am a bit confused by

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 09:43:24 UTC, Idan Arye wrote: Red is not Rebol2 compatible - it's outright impossible to have a single script file that'll run without errors on both Rebol2 and Red. The reason is that Rebol2 requires the first thing in the file to be a `REBOL` preamble, while

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 20:42 +, Suliman via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Should we try to implement yet another language for writing > building config? Maybe we should use any of existence language > that may be very good for it, like Red. It have very small foot > prints so it can be easy to

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 12:07:51 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: I think you are meaning Bazel here. http://bazel.io/ I haven't had chance to play with it as yet, and it changes massively every day – though I suspect it is the internal of the satisfaction engine that change not the

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 21:05 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars- d wrote: > […] > No, I wasn't really talking about a build system for D, more like > a hypothetic generic distributed build system for all languages. > But I've read that Google uses a distributed build system for > their

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 12:03:35 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: I am not sure why this causes such warfare. Ant is a build engine with an XML and a Groovy front end, those that like XML use that, those that do not can use Groovy. I am unaware of any warfare in the Ant community about this

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 10:33:05 UTC, Luis wrote: On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 10:27:45 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 05:39:26 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote: On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 04:54:23 UTC, James Hofmann wrote: [...] Sorry, I think that most of

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 20:42:23 UTC, Suliman wrote: Should we try to implement yet another language for writing building config? Maybe we should use any of existence language that may be very good for it, like Red. It have very small foot prints so it can be easy to embeded to build

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 20:42:23 UTC, Suliman wrote: Should we try to implement yet another language for writing building config? Maybe we should use any of existence language that may be very good for it, like Red. It have very small foot prints so it can be easy to embeded to build

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 20:42:23 UTC, Suliman wrote: Should we try to implement yet another language for writing building config? No, I wasn't really talking about a build system for D, more like a hypothetic generic distributed build system for all languages. But I've read that

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 17:25:04 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: rust cargo -> rust manifest rust cargo -> toml

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 15:41:39 UTC, Tourist wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 15:12:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: The number of posts in this thread has multiple reasons, I'd argue that it's questionable to draw conclusions from that. Don't fool yourself. You made a mistake. That's

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 17:06:56 UTC, ZombineDev wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 15:41:39 UTC, Tourist wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 15:12:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: The number of posts in this thread has multiple reasons, I'd argue that it's questionable to draw

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 15:12:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: The number of posts in this thread has multiple reasons, I'd argue that it's questionable to draw conclusions from that. Don't fool yourself. You made a mistake. That's fine. Own and fix it. Trying to make it look good is only

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On 11/25/15 5:17 AM, Suliman wrote: I think that using SDL format was big mistake. Not only I do not want to spend time in learning yet another dead config format that now use only one project -- DUB. In time when DUB used json it was not perfect, but at last it was standard and everybody can

Re: I hate new DUB config format

Am 27.11.2015 um 16:23 schrieb Walter Bright: On 11/26/2015 11:08 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote: This looks like it's creeping towards inventing a new script programming language. Adding loops, switch statements, functions, etc., can't be far off. Before you get too far down this path, consider:

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 22:52 +, Ola Fosheim Gr via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > What is the advantage of having it in an imperative language, > though? Isn't a concurrent deductive language better and faster? Project definitions should be declarative, definitely. Proejcts should then have a

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 18:23:08 UTC, Chris wrote: When will people understand that indentation should not be part of a language's syntax? Where is that norm coming from? :-) I my experience YAML is a very visually clean format for configuration. I use it for configuration files for

Re: Gradle, Mave, etc. [was I hate new DUB config format]

On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 22:38 +, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > Only those that are required to use it for Android and suffer the > pain of slow builds yet to be fixed as announced on Google IO > 2015. > > I have seen zero projects move to it, otherwise. On the other hand I

Re: Gradle, Mave, etc. [was I hate new DUB config format]

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 18:56:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 22:38 +, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote: But this might be just a bikeshed issue. I have no intention of giving up on Gradle and SCons, I am intransigent. :-) If it is a bikeshed issue then

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 17:18:50 UTC, terchestor wrote: http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=565587f4e4b0b3955a59fb67 shows right now that 70% of 98 voters DISILIKE SDL. Well, most people who didn't object probably didn't bother to vote... What about just hashing it out in YAML? It

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 17:53:04 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 17:18:50 UTC, terchestor wrote: http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=565587f4e4b0b3955a59fb67 shows right now that 70% of 98 voters DISILIKE SDL. Well, most people who didn't object probably

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 18:02:34 UTC, Chris wrote: YAML takes spaces into account, doesn't it? That's a source of unnecessary, Pythonesque bugs. Most editors support YAML so you should get no Pythonesque bugs since they enforce WYSIWYG. I have more issues with my handwritten JSON

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 18:13:11 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 18:02:34 UTC, Chris wrote: YAML takes spaces into account, doesn't it? That's a source of unnecessary, Pythonesque bugs. Most editors support YAML so you should get no Pythonesque bugs

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 17:53:04 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 17:18:50 UTC, terchestor wrote: http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=565587f4e4b0b3955a59fb67 shows right now that 70% of 98 voters DISILIKE SDL. Well, most people who didn't object probably

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 18:07:20 UTC, Luis wrote: How do translate this example on SDLang ? You can translate it by following these patterns: http://www.yaml.org/spec/1.2/spec.html#Preview As you see, you have some room for making it more dense if you want to. So you can tailor it a

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 17:53:04 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 17:18:50 UTC, terchestor wrote: http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=565587f4e4b0b3955a59fb67 shows right now that 70% of 98 voters DISILIKE SDL. Well, most people who didn't object probably

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 22:52:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote: On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 18:54:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: hand lots of people seem addicted to JSON. On the fourth hand I cannot get worked up about this, it is just a build specification script which really ought to be

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 18:50:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: you had to write you own Java coded Maven plugin. So having a language which can offer a declarative DSL and the ability to do a bit of imperative stuff if it is needed, you get a good system. SCons and Gradle both do this:

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 18:54:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 17:25 +, Poyeyo via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] C/C++ make/cmake/nmake -> here be dragons Or SCons if you want to be cool. I guess Bazel (and maybe Tup) might become trendy. perl CPANfile ->

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 19:36:18 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: As much as possible, yes. But non-trivial builds require a DAG, ordering, and plain just telling the computer what to do. Representing a DAG in a logic language is not a problem. The biggest problem is probably that most

Re: I hate new DUB config format

Should we try to implement yet another language for writing building config? Maybe we should use any of existence language that may be very good for it, like Red. It have very small foot prints so it can be easy to embeded to build system.

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 02:46:46 UTC, lobo wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 21:05:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 20:42:23 UTC, Suliman wrote: [...] No, I wasn't really talking about a build system for D, more like a hypothetic generic

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 21:05:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 20:42:23 UTC, Suliman wrote: Should we try to implement yet another language for writing building config? No, I wasn't really talking about a build system for D, more like a hypothetic

Re: I hate new DUB config format

Although I admit to coming in late to a big bikeshed-fest, I have some opinions on configuration file formats from having seen younger, non-technical end users try to configure their own game servers. The support cost of misconfiguration due to syntax error is enormous. Gob-stoppingly huge. It

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 04:54:23 UTC, James Hofmann wrote: FWIW, I'm tempted to take the side of "make JS the default, compile existing SDL and JSON to JS when run, add compilers for TOML or YAML if there's demand". If you make code your lowest common denominator, nothing else

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 10:36:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: Marketing making people reinventing the wheel over and over... Welcome to post-facebook social internet :( we don't have technical meritocracy anymore.

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 08:45:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote: Then again, what is the point of every language inventing their own eco system as an island... Dogfooding? Marketing making people reinventing the wheel over and over...

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 19:12:43 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: It's not. To DUB maintainers: this is a strategic error. Please throw SDL away and use a standardized file format. -- Andrei It's indeed a strategic error to bet on an arcane format, and the fact that the SDL website

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 22:52:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote: What is the advantage of having it in an imperative language, though? Isn't a concurrent deductive language better and faster? In doesn't need to work like D, it only needs to parse like D. After all, configuration is just

Re: I hate new DUB config format

Am 27.11.2015 um 20:25 schrieb Jacob Carlborg: On 2015-11-27 08:55, Sönke Ludwig wrote: That would mean more work for everyone and consequently less adoption. How so? It's the same amount of commands, maybe one extra. Granted, with a CLI it's not that bad. Although then you also have to

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 17:25 +, Poyeyo via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > C/C++ make/cmake/nmake -> here be dragons Or SCons if you want to be cool. I guess Bazel (and maybe Tup) might become trendy.   > perl CPANfile -> something perly > java maven -> xml Does anyone still use Maven – surely

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 16:19:11 UTC, UserAbcabc123 wrote: By the way, I'm curious to see if A.D.Ruppe will summarize the whole topic in the "signifiant NG discussion" section in the next "this week in D" issue... I'm catching up on the email for today then going to write it.

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 16:07:05 UTC, UserAbcabc123 wrote: On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 06:03:21 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 23:38:35 UTC, UserAbcabc123 wrote: On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 22:00:32 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: Dubconf seems to me a good replacement

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 18:54:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 17:25 +, Poyeyo via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] C/C++ make/cmake/nmake -> here be dragons Or SCons if you want to be cool. I guess Bazel (and maybe Tup) might become trendy. perl CPANfile ->

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 18:54:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Does anyone still use Maven – surely the world has moved to Gradle with it's Groovy scripts using the Gradle DSL. If I had a silver coin for every time the world should have moved to a better technology...

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 17:25:04 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: Looking at the two main D competitors, go uses json and rust uses a proprietary format. Tangential to your point, but both Go and Rust suffers from "our policy is to be weird" in many ways that are "off-putting", and D also suffers

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 18:54:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: hand lots of people seem addicted to JSON. On the fourth hand I cannot get worked up about this, it is just a build specification script which really ought to be written in D. cf. What is the advantage of having it in an

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 13:21:33 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 22:05:05 UTC, terchestor wrote: On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 20:16:20 UTC, Minas Mina wrote: SDLang is fine. If someone wants to use D, it won't be SDLang that will stop him. Keep calm and use

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 06:03:21 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: Please change the name. "SDLang" gives good google results

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On 2015-11-28 18:29, BLM768 wrote: Hmm. Pretty, standardized, similar to JSON. I like it! ...but we don't have a parser yet, do we? That might be an obstacle. Not as far as I know. -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 22:05:05 UTC, terchestor wrote: On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 20:16:20 UTC, Minas Mina wrote: SDLang is fine. If someone wants to use D, it won't be SDLang that will stop him. Keep calm and use SDLang. No. STDLang is a terrible idea. Walter's arguments are

Re: I hate new DUB config format

So we reached +200 replies... I'm here wondering if you will keep going with all this drama about this config format, remembering that you can choose one if you don't like the other. And all this drama while this group is small, I'm imagining what happens on a large group or language like

Re: I hate new DUB config format

Again, it is not only about selecting config format. For me the main problem is to have more than one format. Dne 29. 11. 2015 16:51 napsal uživatel "bubbasaur via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>: > So we reached +200 replies... > > I'm here wondering if you will keep going with all

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 06:03:21 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 23:38:35 UTC, UserAbcabc123 wrote: On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 22:00:32 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: Dubconf seems to me a good replacement name for the format. Hilarous, I guess you didn't read the topic

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 16:07:05 UTC, UserAbcabc123 wrote: On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 06:03:21 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 23:38:35 UTC, UserAbcabc123 wrote: On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 22:00:32 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: Dubconf seems to me a good replacement

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 10:17:02 UTC, Suliman wrote: I think that using SDL format was big mistake. Not only I do not want to spend time in learning yet another dead config format that now use only one project -- DUB. In time when DUB used json it was not perfect, but at last it was

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 19:29:48 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: Just throwing it out there: CSON [1]. "CoffeeScript-Object-Notation. Same as JSON but for CoffeeScript objects". It's used by the Atom editor. [1] https://github.com/bevry/cson Hmm. Pretty, standardized, similar to JSON. I

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 19:42:43 UTC, Chris wrote: I'm sure that we would have a similar discussion, if we had YAML, XML, TOML or whatever. It doesn't really matter. But what does matter is that we use a well known standardized format. Then XML is clear winner, its support, spread,

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 18:13:51 UTC, Kagamin wrote: Then XML is clear winner, its support, spread, availability and tooling is unmatched. So is its complexity. ;) Do we even have a good standard XML parser? std.xml has been languishing for years...

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 19:05:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: The main problem with SDL is it's name. It's not an overly popular project - it doesn't even have an article in Wikipedia. That alone is not a problem - if we had something against non-mainstream project we wouldn't be using

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 21:49:07 UTC, BLM768 wrote: Do we even have a good standard XML parser? std.xml has been languishing for years... AFAIK, good json parser is still in a review queue together with std.xml2 :)

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 22:00:32 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: Dubconf seems to me a good replacement name for the format. Hilarous, I guess you didn't read the topic at all...

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 23:38:35 UTC, UserAbcabc123 wrote: On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 22:00:32 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: Dubconf seems to me a good replacement name for the format. Hilarous, I guess you didn't read the topic at all... To be fair, it's 20 pages long.

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 05:09:48 UTC, ChangLong wrote: On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 10:17:02 UTC, Suliman wrote: If SDL will stay by default I will prefer to move to any other build system or will downgrade to old version of DUB. JSON +1 JSON +1 Douchebot -∞

Re: I hate new DUB config format

We don't do name calling here. Please stop it.

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 10:17:02 UTC, Suliman wrote: I think that using SDL format was big mistake. Not only I do not want to spend time in learning yet another dead config format that now use only one project -- DUB. In time when DUB used json it was not perfect, but at last it was

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 01:20:41 UTC, lobo wrote: On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 10:17:02 UTC, Suliman wrote: [...] A 20-page bikeshedding bonanza! Atypical D forums...and a pity that the priorities of core D devs is diverted to this spittle of a forum post when D has much bigger

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 23:38:35 UTC, UserAbcabc123 wrote: On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 22:00:32 UTC, Poyeyo wrote: Dubconf seems to me a good replacement name for the format. Hilarous, I guess you didn't read the topic at all... I've read it all. But I'm not joining the group

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 20:56:04 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 26/11/2015 12:53, Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d wrote: V Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:43:52 + Chris via Digitalmars-d napsáno: On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 12:29:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 18:27:57 UTC, Chris wrote: But JSON is widely used and chances are that people are already familiar with it. If not, it's easy to learn, there are loads of resources. 3rd party tools can easily parse it. And hey, it's not that bad. Well, many are familiar with

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 16:27:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 15:58:40 UTC, Chris wrote: Basically yes. But if it concerns "offical D" things should be synchronized better. Maybe defining what the inclusion process for "official D" is and set down

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 15:49:48 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 15:35:32 UTC, Chris wrote: That's why I said that (timely) communication is of utmost importance. Post factum decisions are bound to cause trouble. Yes, I agree. So then one should just

Re: I hate new DUB config format

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 17:51:40 UTC, Chris wrote: DUB works out of the box. dub init myproject. Wasn't smack-talking DUB. Just pointing out that any type of modification of a config file is a turnoff for a newbie, no matter what format it is in. (and for me and many others JSON

  1   2   3   >