I hate new DUB config format

[Gordon via Digitalmars-d]

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:
>>>> On 2015-11-25 11:17, Suliman wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> BTW, why was not TOML [1] chosen? I know it was discussed 
>>>> but I
>>>> can't remember why SDL was preferred. I think TOML is more
>>>> widely used than SDL [2]. GitLib CI multi runner is also 
>>>> using
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://github.com/toml-lang/toml
>>>> [2] https://github.com/toml-lang/toml#projects-using-toml
>>>
>>> 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)

Very well indeed. Sonke needs to respond to this.

By Sonkes own admission json does everything we need except 
comments. These configuration files are what 50 lines long? And 
there is an easy workaround. Seriously our problem we dont have 
nice comments for tiny files? So lets use a language nobody else 
wants to use? How dod we get to this point?

Andrei is an ass sometimes. But his point is valid. Now we have 
Sonke all offended but do not mix it the technical point. And of 
course Douchebot had to come out of the woodwork. Worst thing 
about D leadership is they didn't rid the community of persons 
like him. But that should not detract from the main point - SDL 
is a bad decision any way you look at it. It should be undone.