I hate new DUB config format

[Poyeyo via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 16:07:05 UTC, UserAbcabc123 wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 06:03:21 UTC, Poyeyo wrote:
>> On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 23:38:35 UTC, UserAbcabc123 
>> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 22:00:32 UTC, Poyeyo wrote:
>>>> Dubconf seems to me a good replacement name for the format.
>>>
>>> Hilarous, I guess you didn't read the topic at all...
>>
>> I've read it all. But I'm not joining the group in arguing 
>> against the format. And yes, someone said .dubconf should be 
>> an analog for.
>
> DUB people can't change the format name. They are not the SDL 
> authors.

Of course they can, it's called a fork. It's even logical to 
change the name if they choose to add features to it. Examples of 
forks: Iceweasel and Pale Moon are forks of Firefox.

> This is what I find hilarous because let's say 12 pages before 
> there's been a misunderstanding caused by the fact that some 
> people thought the format is propietary, thus DUB people have 
> have been unfairly blamed...
>
> The whole discussion is not about the file extention. The File 
> extention is not a problem at all, the discussion was more 
> about the format itself.

Well, I'm not the only one to mention that the only really bad 
thing about sdlang is the name.

Let's go back to a general point of view.

As far as dependency managers go, the language used varies 
greatly:

C/C++ make/cmake/nmake -> here be dragons
perl CPANfile -> something perly
java maven -> xml
ruby gemfile -> ruby
python pip -> python egg
php composer -> json
node.js npm -> json
go godep -> json
rust cargo -> rust manifest
d dub -> json and sdlang

Looking at the two main D competitors, go uses json and rust uses 
a proprietary format.

Both languages seem to be used without issues in each project, 
may be the only issue for dub is supporting two formats instead 
of one.

Regards,