On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 18:54:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> Does anyone still use Maven – surely the world has moved to Gradle with it's Groovy scripts using the Gradle DSL.

If I had a silver coin for every time the world should have moved to a better technology...

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 18:54:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 17:25 +0000, Poyeyo via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> 
> […]
>> C/C++ make/cmake/nmake -> here be dragons
>
> Or SCons if you want to be cool. I guess Bazel (and maybe Tup) might
> become trendy.
>
>> perl CPANfile -> something perly
>> java maven -> xml
>
> Does anyone still use Maven – surely the world has moved to Gradle with it's Groovy scripts using the Gradle DSL.
>

Only those that are required to use it for Android and suffer the pain of slow builds yet to be fixed as announced on Google IO 2015.

I have seen zero projects move to it, otherwise.

All our customers are on Ant and Maven.

Personally I don't see any value on Gradle, besides having more time to fetch coffee.

--
Paulo

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 13:21:33 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 22:05:05 UTC, terchestor wrote:
>> On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 20:16:20 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:
>>> SDLang is fine. If someone wants to use D, it won't be SDLang that will stop him.
>>>
>>> Keep calm and use SDLang.
>>
>> No. STDLang is a terrible idea. Walter's arguments are right on.
>
> He argued that {"comment":"blabla"} is a comment, and the sad thing is he's serious. That's a really shocking thing from someone like him!

This argument make perfect sense. It's 30 freaking lines. A simple workaround is just enough. It is shocking you don't get it.

> And then he suggested we could just use a standard JSON parses, totally ignoring the reasons SDL was introduced in the first place, namely that comments can't be used in standard JSON, and it forces commas and braces all over the place while disallowing trailing commas.

Yeah, totally great reasons those were. We don't have nice comments for this *very* *small* file. I know! I know! Let's use a different language, preferably one that nobody else cares to!

> The third argument I've seen from him boils down to that it's an uncommon format (although at first he claimed it was invented for DUB, which is clearly wrong). While this may be a legitimate concern, it is a very minor one IMO.
>
> So, how can you conclude these arguments "are right on"? In fact, they're at best unimportant, but mostly non-sensical or based on wrong assumptions.

Your lack of common sense and basic engineering mindset is appaling.

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 18:54:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> hand lots of people seem addicted to JSON. On the fourth hand I cannot get worked up about this, it is just a build specification script which really ought to be written in D. cf.

What is the advantage of having it in an imperative language, though? Isn't a concurrent deductive language better and faster?

Then again, what is the point of every language inventing their own eco system as an island...

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 22:52:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote:
> What is the advantage of having it in an imperative language, though? Isn't a concurrent deductive language better and faster?

In doesn't need to work like D, it only needs to parse like D. After all, configuration is just data.

> Then again, what is the point of every language inventing their own eco system as an island...

Dogfooding?

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 17:25:04 UTC, Poyeyo wrote:

> rust cargo -> rust manifest


rust cargo -> toml

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 08:45:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> Then again, what is the point of every language inventing their own eco system as an island...
>
> Dogfooding?

Marketing making people reinventing the wheel over and over...

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 10:36:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> Marketing making people reinventing the wheel over and over...

Welcome to post-facebook social internet :( we don't have technical meritocracy anymore.

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 19:12:43 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> It's not. To DUB maintainers: this is a strategic error. Please throw SDL away and use a standardized file format. -- Andrei

It's indeed a strategic error to bet on an arcane format, and the fact that the SDL website went down soon after adding SDL support just proves the point. But I don't think it's a big problem, we should simply add more parsers, e.g. yaml and toml, and let people use what they're comfortable with. Of course we'd still need to choose a default.

Am 27.11.2015 um 20:25 schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On 2015-11-27 08:55, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>
>> That would mean more work for everyone and consequently less adoption.
>
> How so? It's the same amount of commands, maybe one extra.

Granted, with a CLI it's not that bad. Although then you also have to manage user credentials. So it just means a bit more to learn and remember. That alone is not much, but it adds another bit to the barrier of entry - something that may be irrelevant if the barrier is low enough, but it may make a difference once things start to feel complicated.

>> Seriously, I think it's the best approach possible and really couldn't
>> imagine using a more manual system to the extend that I do now. But more
>> importantly, it would mean that we have a problem with cross-platform
>> packages. You can't expect everyone to be able to build for all
>> platforms. But if they don't, you can't know the dependencies or
>> whatever else for those other platforms, even if the code would in
>> theory compile fine.
>
> The packages don't need to contain compiled binaries. It could still be
> source distribution.

What I mean is that the script will have to be run for each target platform just to know the final settings (e.g. dependencies) that it generates.