Why don't we write configuration files in D instead of JSON?

[Seb via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 13:20:06 UTC, Guido wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 06:07:55 UTC, Seb wrote:
>> On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 05:31:26 UTC, Guido wrote:
>>> It would seem that by running the file through mixin, you can 
>>> simply create the vars you want in scope. The drawback being 
>>> random code execution. Is there any way to sanitize mixin 
>>> code from user-configurable file?
>>
>> Well it's a configuration file that e.g. the registry has to 
>> parse too, hence (as for all config files) random code 
>> execution is pretty bad.
>> Apart from that it's just about a small configuration file for 
>> the name, title etc. - you don't need a full-blown D 
>> interpreter for this.
>>
>> Imho SDL does a good job at keeping the syntax rather minimal 
>> :)
>>
>> Of course do one stops you to use D to generate a 
>> configuration file.
>>
>>> Once that's shot down, does anyone know a .json to .sdl 
>>> converter program
>>
>> have a look at  `dub convert` - in your case e.g. `dub convert 
>> -f sdl`
>
> Thanks for the answer. I conceptually like SDL better than 
> JSON. We'll see how I like it in practice. I went looking for 
> examples of SDL online and found that even the SDlang-D project 
> is using a dub.json configuration file. How weird is that?
>
> Also, LOL @Ketmar.

Well fib initially started with Json, then wanted to switch to 
sdl, but never made the move.
See this issue for some details:

https://github.com/dlang/dub/issues/789

I think the only problem with sdl is that it's rather unknown and 
a _popular_ human-readable format like toml or yaml would have 
been a better choice.