I hate new DUB config format

[Craig Dillabaugh via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 04:54:23 UTC, James Hofmann wrote:
>
> FWIW, I'm tempted to take the side of "make JS the default, 
> compile existing SDL and JSON to JS when run, add compilers for 
> TOML or YAML if there's demand". If you make code your lowest 
> common denominator, nothing else matters, and JS is the 
> de-facto lowest common denominator of code, today. Someone 
> presented with a config whose syntax they don't know can tell 
> Dub to port it to JS and edit that instead, and so over time 
> all configs end up being a blob of JS code, in the same way 
> that the "light"/"heavy" markup situation is resolved by 
> gradually converting everything into the heavy format even if 
> it didn't start there. That is OK. Dub might run a bit slower, 
> and there are some security issues raised from it, but the 
> world is unlikely to blow up because someone wrote "clever" JS 
> in their Dub config.
>
> Also, people will see the option of coding JS and go, "Now I 
> can write a build system on top of Dub, and it can use my own 
> config format, way better than SDL or YAML or TOML! Everyone's 
> gonna love this!" The D and Dub maintainers smile innocently 
> and say nothing...

Sorry, I think that most of what you said made good sense, but I 
am a bit confused by the quoted bit.  So you want the DUB config 
files written in full-blown JavaScript? Then DUB and the other 
tools would need a JavaScript compiler built-in.