Before we implement SDL package format for DUB

[ponce via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 22:32:36 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 16:40:10 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I've been working on SDL support for DUB and wanted to get 
>> some people's opinions on whether we should really use SDL.  
>> I've posted my thoughts here: 
>> http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2263/
>
> Please no custom markup languages when existing ones are good 
> enough.

Are they good enough really? I've tested it all.

- SDL is _whitespace sensitive_ and have a date data-type which 
complicate the parser for little good. Lack of parsers ensues.
- I've actually tested TOML. It has a weird edge case for tables 
of hashes and hashes of tables, it's not composable syntax and 
the worst of the bunch as far as I'm concerned. TOML is also 
whitespace sensitive.
- JSON has no comments, also trailing commas are disallowed (but 
allowed in DUB which push constraints on foreign parsers)
- XML is XML. I find it actually OK.

To me ASON (minus unnamed fields minus unquoted values :) ) is 
certainly a better configuration format, and being JSON 
compatible doesn't hurt.