I hate new DUB config format

[B.Basile via Digitalmars-d]

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.