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 standard and everybody can read it.

I think the only mistake here (beside this whole thread) was that SDL was made the default config format as soon as it was introduced (@Sonke: .

What is the problem in having multiple formats as long as:
- they work together;
- they exhibit the same set of properties;
- you can easily convert from one to another;
- you are not forced to use one or the other;

ATM, it seems that only the third and possibly fourth points are missing. IMO dub really needs a `.dubconfig` (a la .gitconfig) for various thing, like default compiler to use, default format to use in dub init, as well as default value for certain field (I'm really tired of it using my username ;) ).

@Walter: Your comments on maintaining your own parser are somewhat ironic, considering Sonke did write not one, but two JSON parsers already, including one that has been under review for months.

Overall, it's really disappointing to see the management sometimes jumping the gun over a reddit/hackernews comment or a post here, and totally dismissing days, weeks, or in this case, years of progress.

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 18:58:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> 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 JSON, and I use it all the time, but it is not a good or readable format. It is just something browsers have builtin, that's the only thing it has going for it.
>
>> XML is a lot worse as regards human readability.
>
> I think not. It is all about familiarity and if the grammar has been designed for it. I find my own XML _much_ more readable than JSON. And much easier to eXtend.
>
> If you use a decent XML editor and have a schema for the grammar then you get a really nice generic editing solution with auto-completion.
>
> Here is one very real advantage of XML: the ability to embed standard markup in descriptions and use one "container format" for all future non-D data.
>
> I think the animosity against XML is misguided.
>
> But if XML is out, then YAML is a good expressive alternative (that can be translated into XML, so you can use both if you want to).
>
> JSON is very limiting and not a future proof solution. People who pick JSON for configuration, probably also pick Php for their website. ;^)

At the end of the day, all markup, data exchange or description languages are not easy on the eye. It's a question of "which is worse", and that's often a question of personal taste.

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.

I think the point to take home is that communication has to work better between the D core and its (official) satellites.

SDLang is fine. If someone wants to use D, it won't be SDLang that will stop him.

Keep calm and use SDLang.

On 11/27/2015 11:41 AM, Mathias Lang wrote:
> What is the problem in having multiple formats

I posted a list twice upthread.

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 20:47:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/27/2015 11:41 AM, Mathias Lang wrote:
>> What is the problem in having multiple formats
>
> I posted a list twice upthread.

Do you mind to link? This is a huge thread now!

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 21:00:38 UTC, bubbasaur wrote:
> On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 20:47:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 11/27/2015 11:41 AM, Mathias Lang wrote:
>>> What is the problem in having multiple formats
>>
>> I posted a list twice upthread.
>
> Do you mind to link? This is a huge thread now!

175 posts. We're mad!

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 right on. Drop the drama and stop complaining you are not micromanaged out of terrible ideas.

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 21:00:38 UTC, bubbasaur wrote:
> On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 20:47:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 11/27/2015 11:41 AM, Mathias Lang wrote:
>>> What is the problem in having multiple formats
>>
>> I posted a list twice upthread.
>
> Do you mind to link? This is a huge thread now!

No trouble with multiple languages but can't run a search...

http://forum.dlang.org/post/n39sgu$1iio$1@digitalmars.com

On 11/27/2015 2:10 PM, terchestor wrote:
> On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 21:00:38 UTC, bubbasaur wrote:
>> On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 20:47:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 11/27/2015 11:41 AM, Mathias Lang wrote:
>>>> What is the problem in having multiple formats
>>>
>>> I posted a list twice upthread.
>>
>> Do you mind to link? This is a huge thread now!
>
> No trouble with multiple languages but can't run a search...
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/n39sgu$1iio$1@digitalmars.com
>
>

I meant:

"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."

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 19:42:43 UTC, Chris wrote:
> At the end of the day, all markup, data exchange or description languages are not easy on the eye. It's a question of "which is worse", and that's often a question of personal taste.

Yes, syntax is rather personal! Some GNU people want Lisp as the universal config format + scripting language (guile)... I understand their motivation and reasoning, but I don't want it... 8-)

But technical merits and tooling is  a more objective criteria, and right now XML and all the associated standards provides best interop, ability to describe the content to non DUB tools on a meta level, transforms, queries, etc.

> 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.

Just define a canonical XML format for advanced use, which is used internally and for interchange, then provide the common stuff as easy-to-read YAML / JSON. That way 90% can use the easy version, and all advanced or experimental shoot-yourself-in-the-foot functionality is hidden from newbies.

The DUB tooling would just generate the XML from the newbie format.

One can have it both ways. :)