I hate new DUB config format

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 18:58:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Friday, 27 November 2015 at 18:27:57 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> But JSON is widely used and chances are that people are 
>> already familiar with it. If not, it's easy to learn, there 
>> are loads of resources. 3rd party tools can easily parse it. 
>> And hey, it's not that bad.
>
> Well, many are familiar with JSON, and I use it all the time, 
> but it is not a good or readable format. It is just something 
> browsers have builtin, that's the only thing it has going for 
> it.
>
>> XML is a lot worse as regards human readability.
>
> I think not. It is all about familiarity and if the grammar has 
> been designed for it. I find my own XML _much_ more readable 
> than JSON. And much easier to eXtend.
>
> If you use a decent XML editor and have a schema for the 
> grammar then you get a really nice generic editing solution 
> with auto-completion.
>
> Here is one very real advantage of XML: the ability to embed 
> standard markup in descriptions and use one "container format" 
> for all future non-D data.
>
> I think the animosity against XML is misguided.
>
> But if XML is out, then YAML is a good expressive alternative 
> (that can be translated into XML, so you can use both if you 
> want to).
>
> JSON is very limiting and not a future proof solution. People 
> who pick JSON for configuration, probably also pick Php for 
> their website. ;^)

At the end of the day, all markup, data exchange or description 
languages are not easy on the eye. It's a question of "which is 
worse", and that's often a question of personal taste.

I'm sure that we would have a similar discussion, if we had YAML, 
XML, TOML or whatever. It doesn't really matter. But what does 
matter is that we use a well known standardized format.

I think the point to take home is that communication has to work 
better between the D core and its (official) satellites.