Am 26.11.2015 um 16:43 schrieb Ilya Yaroshenko:
> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 10:19:13 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> 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*.
>
> The problem is dependency from dub because some dependencies of a
> project can have SDL configs.

The only valid reason for an IDE to directly parse the package description is basically if it wants to provide a custom UI for editing it. If the IDE is written in D, it can easily use DUB as a library and not only get the package description in a common format, but also nicely statically typed. If not, the conversion feature that was planned for the next version would trivially solve that, too.

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:43:13PM +0000, mattcoder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Sorry but for me this is another "HOT" thread for a sh*t problem. The
> OP dislikes SDL, so use JSON. What's the big deal, and as Sönke Ludwig
> said, it was announced before
> (http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/)
> and most agree with this change.
> 
> I'm here almost every day reading the topics. And is weird to see how the sh*t ones usually got attraction.
[...]

It's an internet phenomenon. Online forums tend to be short and sweet when it comes to important discussions, but trivial discussions tend to flourish, attract lots of attention, and, if they happen to touch on an especially sensitive or controversial topic, rapidly grow out of proportion and threaten to take over the entire forum and become the biggest topic of the day, even though in the grand scheme of things it's really not that important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality


T

-- 
That's not a bug; that's a feature!

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:08:29AM +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 09:21:33 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> >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.
> 
> This.
> 
> Sorry, Andrei, but you are absolutely terrible at management, at least at managing open-source project. Especially when compared to how brilliant you are as engineer and computer scientist.
> 
> I wouldn't normally bring attention to this topic to avoid starting yet another flame exchange but insulting Sonke in this thread was really pushing the limit. Especially considering it is _your_ personal failure as a leader to not react to one of announcements and discussions in time. With such attitude you will only alienate few hard working contributors which make D happen.

Not to mention each time this happens (and it has happened more than once, to say the least) it kills morale, one of the most important things in an open source project, because unlike a proprietary project, there is no (or very little) financial motivation to keep going.


T

-- 
Never trust an operating system you don't have source for! -- Martin Schulze

On 11/25/2015 11:45 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-11-25 20:02, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Note 2: I intend to migrate the dmd.conf file format to json.
> What's the gain here compared to the breakage it will cause?

I recently spent some effort extending that format to support needed features. It would not have been necessary if it was in json. (The dmd.conf format has been extended multiple times in the past, and I expect it to be in the future. The extensions have also tended to be quick and dirty (and buggy) hackish changes because nobody wanted to spend any real time on it. Again, a problem solved by using json.)

The old format would still be read, it would just no longer get any improvements.

On 11/26/2015 7:49 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 1:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2015-11-26 12:47, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> We get to delete the non-boost INI parser from the frontend!
>>
>> How much trouble is that causing?
>>
>
> None, it just annoys me.

I agree with Daniel on that point.

On 11/26/2015 12:50 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Nobody has invented anything here. Please at least get your facts straight
> before ending discussions in this tone and manner.

I told Andrei it was invented, so I take the blame for that. I was wrong. Jonathan has since corrected me.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 16:10:10 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> [...]
> The only valid reason for an IDE to directly parse the package description is basically if it wants to provide a custom UI for editing it. If the IDE is written in D, it can easily use DUB as a library and not only get the package description in a common format, but also nicely statically typed. If not, the conversion feature that was planned for the next version would trivially solve that, too.

No, there's also a problem of latency caused by dependency checking (and if there are any). But that's actually linked: if an IDE wants to make a UI editor for a DUB description it's faster to parse directly the description...Maybe you'll remember a brief discussion about this (at the end of summer when you released latest DUB version, maybe in the NG discussion created for the RC).

But that's a only personnal concern. Since SDL is not popular, there is no SDL library for the language used to write the IDE, so it sucks a bit...The day it'll become unsustainable I'll write a SDL parser for this lang, but so far it only happend **once** to find an online package that was in SDL and that I ve ignored because I knew I couln't easily inspect the sources, modify them or recompile.

Am 26.11.2015 um 18:16 schrieb B.Basile:
> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 16:10:10 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> [...]
>> The only valid reason for an IDE to directly parse the package
>> description is basically if it wants to provide a custom UI for
>> editing it. If the IDE is written in D, it can easily use DUB as a
>> library and not only get the package description in a common format,
>> but also nicely statically typed. If not, the conversion feature that
>> was planned for the next version would trivially solve that, too.
>
> No, there's also a problem of latency caused by dependency checking (and
> if there are any).

But that won't happen in case of the conversion feature (and neither when parsing it using the DUB library). My point is that everything apart from a simple package recipe editor UI basically has to reimplement large parts of DUB, which makes it rather impractical.

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 19:02:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Note 2: I intend to migrate the dmd.conf file format to json.

Use D instead: http://forum.dlang.org/post/vjipqkoiktkfvmnbsfmv@forum.dlang.org
The compiler already has everything to parse it.

As a side note json contains a fork of the unicode standard: disallows BOM. If you're looking for an invention, that would be json (worse, it's subtly incompatible).

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 08:50:42 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> Sönke

Thank you (and others) for your time developing dub.

I don't understand any feelings for or against the configuration's format. From a maintainability perspective JSON wins, from readability SDL wins. Pick _one_. Move on.

Anytime I need to set some build settings for a project I need to lookup the options either way - then do copy paste.

The only thing missing is: `dub install package[@version]`; I never understood the absence of that feature.