I hate new DUB config format

[Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 02:46:46 UTC, lobo wrote:
> On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 21:05:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
> Grøstad wrote:
>> On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 20:42:23 UTC, Suliman wrote:
>>> Should we try to implement yet another language for writing 
>>> building config?
>>
>> No, I wasn't really talking about a build system for D, more 
>> like a hypothetic generic distributed build system for all 
>> languages. But I've read that Google uses a distributed build 
>> system for their big C++ applications. So people are working 
>> on such solutions already.
>>
>>> Maybe we should use any of existence language that may be 
>>> very good for it, like Red. It have very small foot prints so 
>>> it can be easy to embeded to build system.
>>
>> I've never heard of Red, do you have a link?
>
> Red started out as a Rebol 2 clone and last I checked (18 
> months ago) it was still is Rebol 2 compatible.
>
> http://www.red-lang.org/
>
> bye,
> lobo

Red is not Rebol2 compatible - it's outright impossible to have a 
single script file that'll run without errors on both Rebol2 and 
Red. The reason is that Rebol2 requires the first thing in the 
file to be a `REBOL` preamble, while Red requires it to be a 
`Red` preamble(though it's generous enough to allow a shebang 
before it). Since you can only have one preamble, and it can't be 
both `REBOL` and `Red`, I refuse to call them compatible even if 
every Rebol2 command can be copied to a Red script and run in 
there!

At any rate, please don't use any Rebol dialect in DUB(or for 
anything else, in that matter. Just - don't use it). Many 
languages have awkward quirks, but Rebol seems to be a collection 
of awkward quirks with a programming language somtimes 
accidentally hiding in between, created by someone who thought 
Perl is too readable and shell scripts have too strict type 
systems.