I hate new DUB config format

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 00:39:12 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
> V Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:27:06 +0000
> CraigDillabaugh via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> 
> napsáno:
>
>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 20:56:04 UTC, Bruno Medeiros 
>> wrote:
>> > On 26/11/2015 12:53, Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> >> V Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:43:52 +0000
>> >> Chris via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> 
>> >> napsáno:
>> >> 
>> >>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 12:29:55 UTC, Jacob 
>> >>> Carlborg wrote:
>> >>>> [...]
>> >>>
>> >>> TOML looks nice, _but_ it's version 0.4.0. We cannot 
>> >>> afford to maintain a parser for a format that hasn't 
>> >>> "settled down" yet.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, but we can afford to mantain a parser for a dead format?
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simple_Declarative_Language
>> >> 
>> >
>> > BAM!! *Daniel drops mike, walks way*
>> >
>> >
>> > (well said)
>> 
>> Isn't it easier to maintain a parser for a dead format than a 
>> living one? You know it won't change ... after all, its dead!
>
> You can still maintain  selected version (0.4 in toml for 
> example).

Yes. I thought about that too. But guess what happens next. 
People will say "TOML 0.5 has this really nice feature, why don't 
we have it in DUB yet?" and "Why is DUB still at TOML 0.4 while 
we already have TOML 0.6? No wonder D will never be as successful 
as PHP/Java/Ruby/Python!"

Be realistic. It sounds great in theory, but we will play catch 
up just like we do with DMD vs. GDC/LDC. And for a what?

As I said TOML looks good, but it's not worth the hassle at the 
moment. It can still be done further down the road.

> Maintaining parser for dead language where is not easy to find 
> out specs is definitely not easier :).

If it's dead, it won't change.