Including Dub with D

[Kiith-Sa via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 24 May 2014 at 17:30:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 5/24/2014 12:42 PM, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <
>> digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Original thread : http://forum.rejectedsoftware.
>>> com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/
>>> Summary by Sonke: 
>>> https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-
>>> based-package-format-draft
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Personally, I don't find the arguments for switching 
>> convincing.  Perhaps
>> moving to an extended JSON that supports comments and other 
>> niceties, but
>> moving to an entirely new format seems excessive.  The nice 
>> thing about
>> JSON is that it is commonly used everywhere, making dub easy 
>> to approach
>> and easy to write tooling for - even after a switch to SDL as 
>> the primary
>> format, I can see many folks and tooling continuing to use 
>> JSON.  Without
>> removal of JSON support you are stuck supporting two formats...
>>
>> tl;dr I think it is a bad idea.
>>
>
> Nobody has said anything about removing JSON support. It's been 
> stated that JSON support is *staying* as an option. SDL will 
> merely be the recommended format.
>
> Sayeth Sonke:
>
> "The plan is to keep full support for the JSON based package 
> description and still use it for machine-to-machine 
> communication, but at the same time add the new format as the 
> preferred way for developers to write."
>  - 
> https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-based-package-format-draft

That is not the issue.

The issue is with tools, e.g. an IDE or script wanting to support 
Dub will have to have a dependency on an SDL parser (while pretty 
much every language has a JSON parser in its standard lib and if 
not a parser can be written in a few hours - on the other hand 
SDL is very uncommon at the moment).

So you can't e.g. write a quick python util script without 
requiring an external library.