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.

I say the bikeshed should be painted red! ;)

Seriously, it's a simple config format, who cares.  SDL looks just fine to me.

It would be nice if there was a converter that would translate all the config files from one format to the other and people like you could just set an option to have all your dub configs shown to you as json files.  You'd lose the comments, but you don't care for them anyway.

Converters like these would banish all these bikeshed arguments about code formatting or config formats, but what would we argue about then?  We'd have to start debating religion or politics. :)

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 16:22:59 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 10:17:02 UTC, Suliman wrote:
>> [...]
>
> I say the bikeshed should be painted red! ;)
>
> Seriously, it's a simple config format, who cares.  SDL looks just fine to me.
>
> It would be nice if there was a converter that would translate all the config files from one format to the other and people like you could just set an option to have all your dub configs shown to you as json files.  You'd lose the comments, but you don't care for them anyway.
>
> Converters like these would banish all these bikeshed arguments about code formatting or config formats,

I agree.

> but what would we argue about then?  We'd have to start debating religion or politics. :)

No, not here, please :-) If a programming concept turns out to be crap, at least no-one got killed because of it! Only some egos got hurt here and there.

On 11/25/2015 7:25 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> The files are very short, and you don't have to deal with them much.

That makes for an even less of a case for inventing a new file format. I suppose it's water under the bridge, though.

I've written a lot of parsers for various niche file formats. I have come to realize that this is an utter waste of time, when there's an off-the-shelf format that can be pressed into service.

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, etc. It's a huge win.

Note 1: json does support comments:

    "comment" : "this is a comment",

Note 2: I intend to migrate the dmd.conf file format to json.

On 11/25/2015 7:15 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> My one real complaint with JSON at this point (regardless of dub's situation) is
> the fact that it doesn't support comments.

Sure it does:

	"comment" : "This is a comment",

I do something analogous in Ddoc files:

	$(COMMENT This is a comment)

> 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.


If you google "D programming language SDL" you'll find it.

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 19:02:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Note 1: json does support comments:
>
>     "comment" : "this is a comment",

That doesn't work in the majority of contexts (it is illegal in an array, for example) nor is it supported by standard tools.

Imagine if D didn't have comments and someone said "you could always write string comment = `foo`;". We'd laugh at the idea.

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 19:04:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Sure it does:
>
> 	"comment" : "This is a comment",

That only works in contexts where a dictionary is used, and also neither stands out visually by itself nor can be rendered differently by syntax highlighting.

 — David

On 11/25/2015 02:02 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/25/2015 7:25 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> The files are very short, and you don't have to deal with them much.
>
> That makes for an even less of a case for inventing a new file format. I
> suppose it's water under the bridge, though.

It's not. To DUB maintainers: this is a strategic error. Please throw SDL away and use a standardized file format. -- Andrei

On 11/25/2015 02:10 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 19:02:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Note 1: json does support comments:
>>
>>     "comment" : "this is a comment",
>
> That doesn't work in the majority of contexts (it is illegal in an
> array, for example) nor is it supported by standard tools.
>
> Imagine if D didn't have comments and someone said "you could always
> write string comment = `foo`;". We'd laugh at the idea.

As you should. But the comparison is an exaggeration. -- Andrei

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.

I very much prefer SDLang. It's more intuitive, easier to read, less verbose, and supports real comments.

Here's a link to the original discussion: http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/

The examples of JSON vs YAML vs SDLang immediately convinced me SDLang was the way to go. It doesn't make sense to force everyone to use the worst of the three just because it's popular in web development. Further, JSON is still supported and will continue to be supported. Tools should be querying dub directly instead of trying to read the package format.