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.

Now when I come to code.dlang.org I can't simply do copy-past of dependence. I need go to docs page, and read how to include it.

Also I do not see any projects that are migrate to SDL. Everybody continue to use JSON. So please, return JSON back as default, or very soon we will see that nobody do not submit packages to code.dlang.org and nobody do not use DUB for their own projects.

Please vote about SDL config format http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=565587f4e4b0b3955a59fb67

If SDL will stay by default I will prefer to move to any other build system or will downgrade to old version of DUB.

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 10:17:02 UTC, Suliman wrote:
> Also I do not see any projects that are migrate to SDL. Everybody continue to use JSON. So please, return JSON back as default, or very soon we will see that nobody do not submit packages to code.dlang.org and nobody do not use DUB for their own projects.

No hate for the new format there, have not switched because I extended dub.json for the purpose of a build system that is calling DUB itself. And there is no SDL parser in the standard library. No gain, no pain.

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.
>
> Now when I come to code.dlang.org I can't simply do copy-past of dependence. I need go to docs page, and read how to include it.
>
> Also I do not see any projects that are migrate to SDL. Everybody continue to use JSON. So please, return JSON back as default, or very soon we will see that nobody do not submit packages to code.dlang.org and nobody do not use DUB for their own projects.
>
> Please vote about SDL config format http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=565587f4e4b0b3955a59fb67
>
> If SDL will stay by default I will prefer to move to any other build system or will downgrade to old version of DUB.

From what I've read, the JSON format will always be supported, so there's no need to switch to SDLang if you don't want to. Just keep using what you're comfortable with.

Personally, I find the SDLang format much cleaner to use than JSON. I learned everything I needed to know about it in 15 minutes. It's not rocket science. If you can understand the JSON format, you can understand SDLang. Any time I start a new project with DUB I use SDLang instead of JSON. I haven't switched the Derelict packages over to SDL because there's no real reason to do so, since JSON will always be supported. But if I add any new Derelict packages, they will use the new format instead.

On 25.11.2015 13:28, Mike Parker wrote:>
>  From what I've read, the JSON format will always be supported, so
> there's no need to switch to SDLang if you don't want to. Just keep
> using what you're comfortable with.
>
> Personally, I find the SDLang format much cleaner to use than JSON. I
> learned everything I needed to know about it in 15 minutes. It's not
> rocket science. If you can understand the JSON format, you can
> understand SDLang. Any time I start a new project with DUB I use SDLang
> instead of JSON. I haven't switched the Derelict packages over to SDL
> because there's no real reason to do so, since JSON will always be
> supported. But if I add any new Derelict packages, they will use the new
> format instead.
Totally agree with you.

>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 it's much easier to read for humans.

But what we will do with SDL? Who know how to parse, validate it with D, and with another language? Even ini is better, because everybody know it.

On 26/11/15 12:53 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 it's much easier to read for humans.
>
> But what we will do with SDL? Who know how to parse, validate it with D,
> and with another language? Even ini is better, because everybody know it.

I agree with you on all points, the best part is YAML is pretty standard now for Java. So lots and lots of familiarity there.

But at the end of the day. It was decided to go with SDL, even with its spec being incomplete and hardly anybody uses it.

So for the time being, I just use JSON as a form of protest.
After all, just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should effect other people. Unless of course the decision is made to drop json. Then oh boy competition time!

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 11:57:30 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> On 26/11/15 12:53 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 it's much easier to read for humans.
>>
>> But what we will do with SDL? Who know how to parse, validate it with D,
>> and with another language? Even ini is better, because everybody know it.
>
> I agree with you on all points, the best part is YAML is pretty standard now for Java. So lots and lots of familiarity there.
>
> But at the end of the day. It was decided to go with SDL, even with its spec being incomplete and hardly anybody uses it.

On what grounds?

> So for the time being, I just use JSON as a form of protest.
> After all, just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should effect other people. Unless of course the decision is made to drop json. Then oh boy competition time!

Why was SDL agreed upon when it's a niche thing? Wouldn't it make more sense to have JSON that allows comments? Comments are something that's really missing in JSON. (Does SDL have them though?).

It'd be good to have a conversion tool JSON <=> SDL.

On 26/11/15 1:08 AM, Chris wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 11:57:30 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>> On 26/11/15 12:53 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 it's much easier to read for humans.
>>>
>>> But what we will do with SDL? Who know how to parse, validate it with D,
>>> and with another language? Even ini is better, because everybody know
>>> it.
>>
>> I agree with you on all points, the best part is YAML is pretty
>> standard now for Java. So lots and lots of familiarity there.
>>
>> But at the end of the day. It was decided to go with SDL, even with
>> its spec being incomplete and hardly anybody uses it.
>
> On what grounds?

I've forgotten. But its in the N.G. and on Github.

>> So for the time being, I just use JSON as a form of protest.
>> After all, just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should effect
>> other people. Unless of course the decision is made to drop json. Then
>> oh boy competition time!
>
> Why was SDL agreed upon when it's a niche thing? Wouldn't it make more
> sense to have JSON that allows comments? Comments are something that's
> really missing in JSON. (Does SDL have them though?).
>
> It'd be good to have a conversion tool JSON <=> SDL.

They looked at a lot of different options.
And yes SDL does have things like comments.

But it really doesn't matter now. This is the path that was chosen.
Either put up with it or code.

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 12:13:39 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> On 26/11/15 1:08 AM, Chris wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 11:57:30 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>>> On 26/11/15 12:53 AM, Suliman wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I agree with you on all points, the best part is YAML is pretty
>>> standard now for Java. So lots and lots of familiarity there.
>>>
>>> But at the end of the day. It was decided to go with SDL, even with
>>> its spec being incomplete and hardly anybody uses it.
>>
>> On what grounds?
>
> I've forgotten. But its in the N.G. and on Github.
>
>>> So for the time being, I just use JSON as a form of protest.
>>> After all, just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should effect
>>> other people. Unless of course the decision is made to drop json. Then
>>> oh boy competition time!
>>
>> Why was SDL agreed upon when it's a niche thing? Wouldn't it make more
>> sense to have JSON that allows comments? Comments are something that's
>> really missing in JSON. (Does SDL have them though?).
>>
>> It'd be good to have a conversion tool JSON <=> SDL.
>
> They looked at a lot of different options.
> And yes SDL does have things like comments.
>
> But it really doesn't matter now. This is the path that was chosen.
> Either put up with it or code.

I don't really mind. I already used SDL in a new test project and it has basically the same logic as JSON. The only thing I'd really like to have is an automatic converter JSON <=> SDL. In this way, I could port my old projects to SDL (and back again, if for some reason I have to).

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.
>
> Now when I come to code.dlang.org I can't simply do copy-past of dependence. I need go to docs page, and read how to include it.
>
> Also I do not see any projects that are migrate to SDL. Everybody continue to use JSON. So please, return JSON back as default, or very soon we will see that nobody do not submit packages to code.dlang.org and nobody do not use DUB for their own projects.
>
> Please vote about SDL config format http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=565587f4e4b0b3955a59fb67
>
> If SDL will stay by default I will prefer to move to any other build system or will downgrade to old version of DUB.

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 D - the problem with SDL's lack of popularity shares it's initials with "Simple DirectMedia Layer" - a super-popular project with binding for most languages. This makes it very hard to google for Dimple Declarative Languae - because most of the things you'll find are about Simple DirectMedia Layer.