On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 20:54:27 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> But if we really wanted a more succinct format, why not go with TOML instead of SDL?

AFAIK the author of SDL is a java programmer and Oracle licensed SDL for internal use.

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 07:15:51 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> This is (one of the reasons) why people complain. The problem with D is that it won't be pretty.

Well, I usually don't use package managers for source code, but if I did I would not consider using one that can write to random directories.

So if one uses Ruby, Python or D, the package manager has to make sure it executes in a "jail filesystem sandbox" that only can touch a specific subtree.

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 07:08:40 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Actually, no! Conditionals and loops are the only constructs - switch is a possibility, but basically nothing else. There will also never be variables, just constants. There is a definitive limit, namely when it becomes impossible to reason about the code in a generic way, without "executing" it, so in particular anything that would make it touring complete is a no-go - no recursion, no loop flow control statements, no goto. In fact, there are no "statements" at all, these are all purely declarative "directives".

Sounds like you should consider using a datalog engine. Good inference power and performance, but not turing complete.

Ola.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 19:05:46 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Just to mention one additional reason for choosing SDLang over one of the more popular formats that shared some of the advantages, there is an idea to add limited support for (declarative) procedural statements: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dub/wiki/DEP4#synopsis
> The representation possible with SDLang is not as good as in an actual programming language, but far better than with any of the JSON-like languages.

Awesome, it looks like a great idea. Particularly when DUB tends to already suck a bit to as for being handled by an IDE, this will probably solve everything !

Do you think that those that can't already use the describe command will ever be compatible with this ?

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 22:27:08 UTC, CraigDillabaugh wrote:
> 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 +0000
>>> Chris via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> napsáno:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 12:29:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> TOML looks nice, _but_ it's version 0.4.0. We cannot afford to
>>>> maintain a parser for a format that hasn't "settled down" yet.
>>>
>>> Ok, but we can afford to mantain a parser for a dead format?
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simple_Declarative_Language
>>>
>>
>> BAM!! *Daniel drops mike, walks way*
>>
>>
>> (well said)
>
> Isn't it easier to maintain a parser for a dead format than a living one? You know it won't change ... after all, its dead!

Err, that's what I thought too. It won't change anymore, if it's dead, right? Also, in the case of SDL, the parser has already been written, for better or worse. But in the case of TOML, time would be spent on _yet another markup language_, and for what? Once D takes off we can think about these things. Atm, they're not really important. Our house doesn't stand properly yet and we're discussing effin bikesheds.

On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 19:06 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-
d wrote:
[…]

Re JSON vs SDL, switch to TOML, Rust did and it solved the Cargo configuration situation "at a stroke".

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 00:39:12 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
> V Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:27:06 +0000
> CraigDillabaugh via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> napsáno:
>
>> 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 +0000
>> >> Chris via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> napsáno:
>> >> 
>> >>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 12:29:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> >>>> [...]
>> >>>
>> >>> TOML looks nice, _but_ it's version 0.4.0. We cannot afford to maintain a parser for a format that hasn't "settled down" yet.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, but we can afford to mantain a parser for a dead format?
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simple_Declarative_Language
>> >> 
>> >
>> > BAM!! *Daniel drops mike, walks way*
>> >
>> >
>> > (well said)
>> 
>> Isn't it easier to maintain a parser for a dead format than a living one? You know it won't change ... after all, its dead!
>
> You can still maintain  selected version (0.4 in toml for example).

Yes. I thought about that too. But guess what happens next. People will say "TOML 0.5 has this really nice feature, why don't we have it in DUB yet?" and "Why is DUB still at TOML 0.4 while we already have TOML 0.6? No wonder D will never be as successful as PHP/Java/Ruby/Python!"

Be realistic. It sounds great in theory, but we will play catch up just like we do with DMD vs. GDC/LDC. And for a what?

As I said TOML looks good, but it's not worth the hassle at the moment. It can still be done further down the road.

> Maintaining parser for dead language where is not easy to find out specs is definitely not easier :).

If it's dead, it won't change.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 22:46:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

>
> 1. JSON has a superset programming language - Javascript - which has conventional syntax rather than the DEP4 proposal for odd syntax like
>
>     if dub-version="<0.9.24"
>
> which I would strongly recommend against. And, we already have a Javascript engine written in D:
>
>     https://github.com/DigitalMars/DMDScript

How do I make it work? DUB gives me errors.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 22:46:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> "With a standard json parser in Phobos, zip zap boom you're done. You don't have to design it, argue about it, build it, document it, debug it, test it, optimize it, explain it, deal with bug requests, deal with enhancement requests, deal with legacy compatibility, build a converter, build a gui tool for it, etc."

Believe it or not they we're designing their own. Ason, a superset of Json. Madness!

http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2263/

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 12:19:14 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 22:46:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> "With a standard json parser in Phobos, zip zap boom you're done. You don't have to design it, argue about it, build it, document it, debug it, test it, optimize it, explain it, deal with bug requests, deal with enhancement requests, deal with legacy compatibility, build a converter, build a gui tool for it, etc."
>
> Believe it or not they we're designing their own. Ason, a superset of Json. Madness!
>
> http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2263/

How many year can you get for ason*?

* The crime of maliciously, voluntarily, and willfully inventing a markup language.

:)))

Couldn't resist!