Hello everyone,

I've been working on SDL support for DUB and wanted to get some people's opinions on whether we should really use SDL.  I've posted my thoughts here: http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2263/

On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 16:40:10 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've been working on SDL support for DUB and wanted to get some people's opinions on whether we should really use SDL.  I've posted my thoughts here: http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2263/

I kind of get the feeling you're trying to push dub to use ASON.

My first reaction is, please don't invent yet another markup language for developers to learn. Especially as this new language is only relevant to dub. Honestly it would seriously make me not want to use dub. Just pick one of the existing ones, XML, Yaml, Json, SDL (i've never heard of this one.) and stick with it. All other package managers seem to do just fine. Don't fix what isn't broken.

Relevant: http://xkcd.com/927/

Seriously though are you also willing to break all existing dub.json files? That's 317 (http://code.dlang.org/ as of today) packages this change is going to mess with. Are you really going to do that? Just as things are starting to take off?

I'm in favour of just sticking to plain, normal old Json. Everyone knows it, everyone understands it and everything else does just fine using it.

On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:28:39 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 16:40:10 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I've been working on SDL support for DUB and wanted to get some people's opinions on whether we should really use SDL.  I've posted my thoughts here: http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2263/
>
> I kind of get the feeling you're trying to push dub to use ASON.
>
> My first reaction is, please don't invent yet another markup language for developers to learn. Especially as this new language is only relevant to dub. Honestly it would seriously make me not want to use dub. Just pick one of the existing ones, XML, Yaml, Json, SDL (i've never heard of this one.) and stick with it. All other package managers seem to do just fine. Don't fix what isn't broken.
>
> Relevant: http://xkcd.com/927/
>
> Seriously though are you also willing to break all existing dub.json files? That's 317 (http://code.dlang.org/ as of today) packages this change is going to mess with. Are you really going to do that? Just as things are starting to take off?
>
> I'm in favour of just sticking to plain, normal old Json. Everyone knows it, everyone understands it and everything else does just fine using it.

If only it supported comments...

Please read the entire post when you reply.

> I kind of get the feeling you're trying to push dub to use ASON.

Yes, in fact I explicitly stated that was my intention.

> My first reaction is, please don't invent yet another markup language for developers to learn. Especially as this new language is only relevant to dub.

That would have also been my first reaction. However, instead of immediately dismissing the idea, it would be more productive to state why you think the language is not a good fit, or why you think SDL will do just fine. I explained why I think ASON would be a better fit than SDL, do you have a counter-argument?

> Honestly it would seriously make me not want to use dub. Just pick one of the existing ones, Yaml, Json, SDL (i've never heard of this one.) and stick with it. All other package managers seem to do just fine. Don't fix what isn't broken.

It would make you not want to use DUB? Could you please explain why? If we used ASON you wouldn't have to change anything, you could just continue to use regular JSON since it is already valid ASON.

> Seriously though are you also willing to break all existing dub.json files? That's 317 (http://code.dlang.org/ as of today) packages this change is going to mess with. Are you really going to do that? Just as things are starting to take off?

No, I wouldn't be willing to break anything. That's why I like ASON, it doesn't break anything. Please read the post before you reply next time.

> I'm in favour of just sticking to plain, normal old Json. Everyone knows it, everyone understands it and everything else does just fine using it.

That's fine, if we used ASON you could just continue to use plain old JSON.

> If only it supported comments...

Yes comments would be amazing...also non-quoted keynames.  If we just added those 2 things to the JSON parser I would be happy:)

On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:40:02 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> That would have also been my first reaction. However, instead of immediately dismissing the idea, it would be more productive to state why you think the language is not a good fit, or why you think SDL will do just fine. I explained why I think ASON would be a better fit than SDL, do you have a counter-argument?

Yes i do, it's simple, we don't need yet another markup language.

> It would make you not want to use DUB? Could you please explain why?

Because learning a markup language tied exclusively to dub means more work to use it. It means i have to learn yet another markup language to package my code for others. Please answer why should i bother?

> No, I wouldn't be willing to break anything. That's why I like ASON, it doesn't break anything. Please read the post before you reply next time.

I have read it and i don't agree with inventing yet another markup language.

> That's fine, if we used ASON you could just continue to use plain old JSON.

If that's the case why do we need ASON?

On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:42:43 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> If only it supported comments...
>
> Yes comments would be amazing...also non-quoted keynames.  If we just added those 2 things to the JSON parser I would be happy:)

Why are comments and non quoted key names needed?

On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:31:42 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> If only it supported comments...

Yeah, that's what I hate about JSON. It's pretty good overall, but that's a huge deficiency IMHO - and I'd very much like to be able to put comments in my dub package files. So, in that respect, ASON seems like a definite improvement. However, I am a bit wary of creating a new file format. Maybe if it's good enough and marketed well enough, it could challenge JSON, but at the moment, it would just be for dub, which isn't so great.

The fact that it's backwards compatible with JSON would be useful for avoiding breaking existing dub packages, and it does sound like it's a better format, but the fact that it's just been created for this makes me leery. And even if we were to push it beyond dub and try and get it accepted more widely, it's new enough that I question that it won't need to be adjusted after further use, since it's rare that anything complicated is done right the first time.

So, I'm not necessarily against the idea of using ASON, but I'm not sure that it's a good idea either.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 19:25:50 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 18:40:02 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> That would have also been my first reaction. However, instead of immediately dismissing the idea, it would be more productive to state why you think the language is not a good fit, or why you think SDL will do just fine. I explained why I think ASON would be a better fit than SDL, do you have a counter-argument?
>
> Yes i do, it's simple, we don't need yet another markup language.

You say "It's simple". How do you define simple...is ASON not simple?  I included the full grammar, it doesn't seem very complex to me.  Also you say, "we don't need another markup language".  That's what I was asking you to explain.  The reason we are looking into new languages is because of the list of grievances we have with JSON (see the original post).  Are you saying that people's problems with JSON are invalid?  Also, what's wrong with new languages?  If you have a problem with new languages, what are you doing here on the D forum?  Sounds like C++ is a better fit for you.

>
>> It would make you not want to use DUB? Could you please explain why?
>
> Because learning a markup language tied exclusively to dub means more work to use it. It means i have to learn yet another markup language to package my code for others. Please answer why should i bother?

Well I just invented ASON last saturday so I don't know how people will react to it.  If DUB ends up using it I hope it isn't exclusively used with DUB. I plan on introducing it at my work (I work at HP) so we may start using it here.  Also, is ASON really that hard to learn?  Here's my full tutorial on moving from JSON to ASON:

1. Comments are supported...yay!
2. No need to quote strings if you don't want to.
3. No need for colons or commas if you don't want them.

There's a couple more features you can use like SingularNames and Nameless fields but don't worry about those, those features come with the advanced course that takes alot longer.  Don't go there unless you're willing to give up 5 minutes of your day.

> I have read it and i don't agree with inventing yet another markup language.

You still haven't explained why inventing new languages is bad.  If we had it your way we'd still be using assembly language.  Just because computer languages have been around for a while doesn't mean they still can't be improved.  D is a perfect example of that.  Instead of just writing things that you assume are always correct, take the time to look at the situation and provide useful insight as to why you think this particular language is not a good fit.

>
>> That's fine, if we used ASON you could just continue to use plain old JSON.
>
> If that's the case why do we need ASON?

Please see the original list of JSON grievances.  I would say the main one is COMMENTS.

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:
>> If only it supported comments...
>
> Yeah, that's what I hate about JSON. It's pretty good overall, but that's a huge deficiency IMHO - and I'd very much like to be able to put comments in my dub package files. So, in that respect, ASON seems like a definite improvement. However, I am a bit wary of creating a new file format. Maybe if it's good enough and marketed well enough, it could challenge JSON, but at the moment, it would just be for dub, which isn't so great.
>
> The fact that it's backwards compatible with JSON would be useful for avoiding breaking existing dub packages, and it does sound like it's a better format, but the fact that it's just been created for this makes me leery. And even if we were to push it beyond dub and try and get it accepted more widely, it's new enough that I question that it won't need to be adjusted after further use, since it's rare that anything complicated is done right the first time.
>
> So, I'm not necessarily against the idea of using ASON, but I'm not sure that it's a good idea either.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Thanks for your reply Jonathan, I would have the same reservations as you...I wouldn't want a languages exclusively used for DUB.  And you could be right that the language may require some modifications since I just wrote it last Saturday.  On the other hand, new languages have to be introduced some where right?  Maybe if DUB started using it...other tools and software would look into it?