dud: A dub replacement

[Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)]

On 11/11/19 8:44 AM, Robert Schadek wrote:
> 
> The goal of dud is mostly do what dub does, but more understandable.
> dud will/does aim for a tasteful subset of dub's features.
> Meaning, most dub files should be good with dud.
> If they are not, you will/should get an error message telling you whats 
> wrong.
> The bigger goal, at least personally, is to have a code base of pure 
> functions
> that is "trivial" to understand and debug.
> The rules of thumb is: "When your line gets longer than 80 characters,
> restructure your code!", "Branch statements are code smells."
> 

Sounds cool!

> Only a few percent are not ingestable by dud, and those are in IHMO not 
> valid
> anyway (to be fair, there is some strange 💩 out there).

 From what I've seen, dub tends to take the approach of "silently ignore 
anything in dub.sdl I don't recognize as valid". I'll admit that may be 
an important approach for a tool that has no concept of its own changing 
versions (which is somewhat strange for dub, considering half of dub is 
a package manager.) But the flipside is that this fosters and breeds 
errors and invalid files in the wild (see: 90's era web browsers).

I'm curious, are there any particular anti-patterns you've noticed as 
being common in the uningestible repos?