I hate new DUB config format

[Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d]

On 26/11/2015 16:10, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>
> The only valid reason for an IDE to directly parse the package
> description is basically if it wants to provide a custom UI for editing
> it. If the IDE is written in D, it can easily use DUB as a library and
> not only get the package description in a common format, but also nicely
> statically typed. If not, the conversion feature that was planned for
> the next version would trivially solve that, too.

This is isn't true. There are things that an IDE might want to do, that 
"dub describe" doesn't currently account for. The DDT IDE is an example 
of that, and I've raised these issues before with DUB. For example:

  * dub describe fails if dependency resolution fails, yet there is 
still partial information about the DUB package that would be of use.
  * dub describe does not provide information for all build 
configurations, only the default one. As such the IDE has to parse the 
json to find out all available configurations itself. (This is used in 
the DDT IDE to show a list of "Build Targets" in the UI)


-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros