I hate new DUB config format

Gordon via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sun Nov 29 14:42:25 PST 2015


On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 13:21:33 UTC, Marc Sch├╝tz 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.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list