Including Dub with D

[Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d]

On 24/05/2014 17:42, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>> wrote:
>
>     Original thread :
>     http://forum.rejectedsoftware.__com/groups/rejectedsoftware.__dub/thread/2/
>     <http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/>
>     Summary by Sonke:
>     https://github.com/__rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-__based-package-format-draft
>     <https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-based-package-format-draft>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Personally, I don't find the arguments for switching convincing.
>   Perhaps moving to an extended JSON that supports comments and other
> niceties, but moving to an entirely new format seems excessive.  The
> nice thing about JSON is that it is commonly used everywhere, making dub
> easy to approach and easy to write tooling for - even after a switch to
> SDL as the primary format, I can see many folks and tooling continuing
> to use JSON.  Without removal of JSON support you are stuck supporting
> two formats...
>
> tl;dr I think it is a bad idea.

My preference was also to go with lenient JSON (more or less as 
described here: 
http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/post/575 )

It is easier (than SDL) to understand if people already know JSON, and 
there is some tool support in other languages already, should that be 
necessary (I'm not sure it would be though). Also, it's easier to change 
a proper JSON document into lenient JSON, it can just be done gradually. 
To change to SDL, it has to be done all at once.

But admittedly, these are all very slim reasons. In the end there 
wouldn't be that much of a difference if DUB went with SDL or 
lenient-JSON. I think the main motivation for going with the later would 
be that then we would have a D library for parsing lenient JSON, which 
for the D community in general (that is, being just DUB usage) might be 
more interesting than having an SDL one.

But in the end, because the differences are slim, I think lenient-JSON 
would only be considered if there is D library support for it. 
Bottomline is, SDL has a parser already.

I feel tempted to write the lenient JSON parser, it should not take take 
long from an plain JSON one, but I'm kind swamped with lots of stuff I 
want to do with DDT and other projects...

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros