Am 26.11.2015 um 06:25 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>
> This would be a lot more sensible if dub were not the official package
> and build manager. The way I look at it, it's a manifestation of a
> systemic problem: I can't work on dub and I can't monitor decisions
> regarding it. Yet that doesn't make it less official. So I need to trust
> other people to mind it in a way that is aligned in broad strokes with
> my view. If I say "well but that's very unlike my view" and I get back
> "some of us prefer it a different way and that's the way it is" then
> that trust is affected. -- Andrei
>

Let me remind you that confidence and especially trust is usually a mutual thing. I don't want to join this discussion of personal matters on a public forum, but I feel that I have to say that there have been numerous occasions where it went the opposite direction.

Furthermore, just to give you a brief overview of history:

Mar. 09, 2013: First call for comments for a new package format
http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/

May 24, 2013: Concrete DUB enhancement proposal (DEP)
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dub/wiki/DEP1

Jun. 12, 2013: Request for creating code.dlang.org

Sep. 26, 2013: Sub discussion about the choice of a JSON alternative in the "dub: should we make it the de jure package manager for D?" thread, started by you
http://forum.dlang.org/post/tuvtennjkvfnnyxmohzx@forum.dlang.org

Jun. 17, 2014: Opened a ticket for adding SDLang support (1.0.0 milestone)

Aug. 08, 2014: Initial implementation as a PR
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dub/pull/392

Sep. 22, 2014: Announcement of 0.9.22 and official status of DUB
http://forum.dlang.org/post/lvoqdv$2m78$1@digitalmars.com

Jun. 17, 2015: Announcement of the first beta version with SDLang support
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mlr7g5$ss1$1@digitalmars.com

Jul. 02, 2015: Announcement of the second beta
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mn47ih$2cp1$1@digitalmars.com

Jul. 13, 2015: Announcement of the first release candidate
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mo1gga$1dn5$1@digitalmars.com

Sep. 14, 2015: Announcement of the final release candidate
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mt6c09$2n33$1@digitalmars.com

Sep. 20, 2015: Announcement of the final release
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mtn1rd$2fa5$1@digitalmars.com

Nov. 25, 2015: This thread


As you can see, not only does all major work/discussions/decisions pre-date the decisions and announcements for making DUB official, but there have been plenty of occasions afterwards where you could have noticed and commented the developments. I can understand that you don't have time to join each discussion, but shouldn't you at least read the announcements on D.announce? Should I contact you privately about each decision? Even for those in the past? Or do you expect me to just know what your opinion is?

The kind of surprised reaction to a stupid bikeshed thread (sorry, but it really is), but no reaction at all to all earlier, much more substantial, threads, just leaves me wondering.

Am 25.11.2015 um 20:25 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>
> As Walter said a few times by now, inventing new languages is an
> endeavor of high fixed cost for everyone involved (including users) and
> shouldn't be done casually.
>
> Please don't reply to this. Just throw SDL away and use JSON. Please
> don't waste time discussing it.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrei
>

Nobody has invented anything here. Please at least get your facts straight before ending discussions in this tone and manner.

Thanks,

Sönke

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 08:50:42 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 25.11.2015 um 20:25 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>>
>> As Walter said a few times by now, inventing new languages is an
>> endeavor of high fixed cost for everyone involved (including users) and
>> shouldn't be done casually.
>>
>> Please don't reply to this. Just throw SDL away and use JSON. Please
>> don't waste time discussing it.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>
> Nobody has invented anything here. Please at least get your facts straight before ending discussions in this tone and manner.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sönke

Single language, json based configuration engine is simpler for IDE development and configuration tools. For example, Sublime Text.This is very important to make language used by big amount of users.

Ilya

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 20:24:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I need to trust our core contributors here to make the right high-level decisions and execute them accurately when I'm not looking.

I believe people do try to account for your possible opinion when making decisions, but your opinion is too inconsistent to be predictable, instead you always make judgement calls. You can't trust people because they don't know what is the right decision in your opinion.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 08:47:41 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> ...

Just wanted to say thanks for SDLang support in dub Sönke, I personally prefer it over json.

Bye.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 09:04:27 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
>
> Single language, json based configuration engine is simpler for IDE development and configuration tools. For example, Sublime Text.This is very important to make language used by big amount of users.
>
> Ilya

Sublime Text configuration has no comments and this kind of sucks compared to eg. a webserver key-value configuration file, or sc.ini, so I'm not sure you chose the best example.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 00:04:49 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Please, no. XML is unreadable write-only stuff that should only be read/written by machine, it's not suitable as a *user* interface.

XML is perfectly fine for hand editing if the grammar is well designed. You even have IDEs that can do grammar based editing which means you only can write valid documents.

It doesn't matter what format you use for this simple application, though.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 09:04:27 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:

>
> Single language, json based configuration engine is simpler for IDE development and configuration tools. For example, Sublime Text.This is very important to make language used by big amount of users.
>
> Ilya

This is not even an issue. IDEs can create a dub.json for all new projects and call 'dub describe' on imported projects without ever touching SDLang. Again, *there is no problem here*.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 10:19:13 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>
> This is not even an issue. IDEs can create a dub.json for all new projects and call 'dub describe' on imported projects without ever touching SDLang. Again, *there is no problem here*.

'dub describe' has one big issue. It works only if you manage your packages in $HOME/.dub. Integrating 'dub describe' in another build tool with a different directory layout is currently impossible.

Parsing the dub.json files directly from the external build tool ('rake' in my case) was doable and reasonably easy, with dub.sdl not anymore.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 09:04:27 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 08:50:42 UTC, Sönke Ludwig

>
> Single language, json based configuration engine is simpler for IDE development and configuration tools. For example, Sublime Text.This is very important to make language used by big amount of users.
>
> Ilya

This is an important point. JSON can be used by tools other than DUB (IDEs etc.)

Let me suggest the following:

1. JSON as default format in DUB when you type `dub init`; SDL as second option
2. a JSON <=> SDL converter (will be needed for community projects)
3. add the ability to add comments to JSON files in DUB, so DUB can handle comments in JSON and JSON's biggest disadvantage disappears (as does the bikeshed)