On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:40:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 1:43 PM, eles wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 13:55:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>> Am 26.08.2014 15:37, schrieb eles:
>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 19:35:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:31:42 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:

> D's an interesting option but it utterly fails the KISS test.

Because there is no std.make or std.build or std.scons or std.cmake module to help with that.

> All it would do is provide many tempting and creative ways to accidentally obfuscate the package description file.

I agree partially with this, this is why I am not pushing for D. A declarative language seems to be more appropriate in this case.

But we could imagine a declarative layer in/over D or a module directed at it. You know, one language to rule them all (including declarative languages, just as the functional ones...).

> And then there's meta-mess of needing the right compiler version to properly handle a given package. Blech.

C'mon. This is because D is still running after its own tail. I mean, keeps evolving ans is unstable. I bet things will very much improve sooner than you think and that D frontend will play a role.

On 8/27/2014 1:40 AM, eles wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:40:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On 8/26/2014 1:43 PM, eles wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 13:55:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>>> Am 26.08.2014 15:37, schrieb eles:
>>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 19:35:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:31:42 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>
>> D's an interesting option but it utterly fails the KISS test.
>
> Because there is no std.make or std.build or std.scons or std.cmake
> module to help with that.
>
>> All it would do is provide many tempting and creative ways to
>> accidentally obfuscate the package description file.
>
> I agree partially with this, this is why I am not pushing for D. A
> declarative language seems to be more appropriate in this case.
>
> But we could imagine a declarative layer in/over D or a module directed
> at it. You know, one language to rule them all (including declarative
> languages, just as the functional ones...).
>
>> And then there's meta-mess of needing the right compiler version to
>> properly handle a given package. Blech.
>
> C'mon. This is because D is still running after its own tail. I mean,
> keeps evolving ans is unstable. I bet things will very much improve
> sooner than you think and that D frontend will play a role.

All reasonable points, but it still seems like swatting a fly with a bazooka. ;)

On 27/08/14 07:40, eles wrote:

> But we could imagine a declarative layer in/over D or a module directed
> at it. You know, one language to rule them all (including declarative
> languages, just as the functional ones...).

You could probably come quite far with UDA's or similar.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 02:24:46 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> That's somewhat misleading.
>
> More accurately, SDL is newline-delimited (with backslash line continuation). That's pretty darn simple and has an age-old history. It's not like we're talking weird Python/JavaScript rules or anything here.
>
> The only thing that does trip people up is that the existence of { and } in the syntax makes people think "C-family and therefore freeform". And then it isn't, so that makes them angry. "Yeeargh! Hulk Not Want!" Well...or something vaguely sorta kinda like that ;)

That's justified, because SDL fails to not surprise. Curly brace syntaxes are not line-delimited not requires backslash line continuations.

>>> - XML is XML. I find it actually OK.
>>
>> I would support this. Yes, is verbose, we know that. But is a very solid
>> foundation.
>>
>
> XML is the spawn of satan. And not the cool "rock n roll", "heavy metal" kind of satan, or the bumbling lovable DBZ "Mr. 'Hercule' Satan" either, but the "hey, let's write a commercial webserver in shell scripts" kind of raw pulsating evil.

What's wrong with XML? I work with it daily and see no problem. The less syntax a language has, the worse it scales, and if it doesn't scale, its adoption creates a technical debt. 100 lines with 3 levels of nesting and JSON becomes hard to follow and TOML becomes simply unmanageable.

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 05:47:37 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 8/27/2014 1:40 AM, eles wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:40:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> On 8/26/2014 1:43 PM, eles wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 13:55:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>>>> Am 26.08.2014 15:37, schrieb eles:
>>>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 19:35:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:31:42 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:

> All reasonable points, but it still seems like swatting a fly with a bazooka. ;)

Well, you need a sharp eye and a sure hand. But otherwise, the sole problem is if the fly is on someone's nose...

Am 27.08.2014 10:02, schrieb Kagamin:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 02:24:46 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> That's somewhat misleading.
>>
>> More accurately, SDL is newline-delimited (with backslash line
>> continuation). That's pretty darn simple and has an age-old history.
>> It's not like we're talking weird Python/JavaScript rules or anything
>> here.
>>
>> The only thing that does trip people up is that the existence of { and
>> } in the syntax makes people think "C-family and therefore freeform".
>> And then it isn't, so that makes them angry. "Yeeargh! Hulk Not Want!"
>> Well...or something vaguely sorta kinda like that ;)
>
> That's justified, because SDL fails to not surprise. Curly brace
> syntaxes are not line-delimited not requires backslash line continuations.

Like JavaScript for example?

>
>>>> - XML is XML. I find it actually OK.
>>>
>>> I would support this. Yes, is verbose, we know that. But is a very solid
>>> foundation.
>>>
>>
>> XML is the spawn of satan. And not the cool "rock n roll", "heavy
>> metal" kind of satan, or the bumbling lovable DBZ "Mr. 'Hercule'
>> Satan" either, but the "hey, let's write a commercial webserver in
>> shell scripts" kind of raw pulsating evil.
>
> What's wrong with XML? I work with it daily and see no problem. The less
> syntax a language has, the worse it scales, and if it doesn't scale, its
> adoption creates a technical debt. 100 lines with 3 levels of nesting
> and JSON becomes hard to follow and TOML becomes simply unmanageable.

The reason to search for an additional format is to make it more convenient and readable for human interaction. XML wouldn't structurally a bad choice, but is awful because of it's syntactical overhead.

Am 27.08.2014 10:29, schrieb eles:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 05:47:37 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On 8/27/2014 1:40 AM, eles wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:40:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>> On 8/26/2014 1:43 PM, eles wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 13:55:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>>>>> Am 26.08.2014 15:37, schrieb eles:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 19:35:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:31:42 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>
>> All reasonable points, but it still seems like swatting a fly with a
>> bazooka. ;)
>
> Well, you need a sharp eye and a sure hand. But otherwise, the sole
> problem is if the fly is on someone's nose...

And you will have to pay the price for a rocket and have to rebuild parts of your house every time you kill a fly ;)

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:27:03 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 27.08.2014 10:02, schrieb Kagamin:
>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 02:24:46 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> The reason to search for an additional format is to make it more convenient and readable for human interaction.

There is also this quest:

http://www.gnu.org/software/recutils/

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:33:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 27.08.2014 10:29, schrieb eles:
>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 05:47:37 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> On 8/27/2014 1:40 AM, eles wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:40:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>> On 8/26/2014 1:43 PM, eles wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 13:55:13 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 26.08.2014 15:37, schrieb eles:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 19:35:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:31:42 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:

> And you will have to pay the price for a rocket and have to rebuild parts of your house every time you kill a fly ;)

If it's 3 AM and you cannot yet sleep because that fly is annoying you, I bet you'll consider that's a very small price to pay...

I just had an "epiphany".  I believe that if I added attributes to ASON, it would be a true superset of SDL.  Meaning any SDL file would also be a valid ASON file.  What kind of monster did I create!  I accidently created a language that serves as both a superset of JSON and SDL?  I didn't think that would be possible, expecially with such a little amount of extensions to JSON.