I hate new DUB config format

[Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 18:54:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 17:25 +0000, Poyeyo via Digitalmars-d 
> wrote:
>> 
> […]
>> C/C++ make/cmake/nmake -> here be dragons
>
> Or SCons if you want to be cool. I guess Bazel (and maybe Tup) 
> might
> become trendy.
>
>> perl CPANfile -> something perly
>> java maven -> xml
>
> Does anyone still use Maven – surely the world has moved to 
> Gradle with it's Groovy scripts using the Gradle DSL.
>
>> ruby gemfile -> ruby
>> python pip -> python egg
>
> Python has moved to wheels, eggs were always crap.
>
>> php composer -> json
>> node.js npm -> json
>> go godep -> json
>
> I am not sure this as as mainstream as this comment implies. 
> Also a lot of people are using gb.
>
>> rust cargo -> rust manifest
>
> Which is TOML.
>
>> d dub -> json and sdlang
>
> Personally I abhor JSON for this kind of specification, it a 
> transfer notation between computers, cf. XML. On the other hand 
> I couldn't get SDL specs working. I will undoubtedly try again 
> as SDL is just so much nicer than JSON for this. On the third 
> hand lots of people seem addicted to JSON. On the fourth hand I 
> cannot get worked up about this, it is just a build 
> specification script which really ought to be written in D. cf. 
> SBT for Scala uses Scala. Leiningen for Clojure uses Clojure. 
> These languages have the right idea.
>
> Oh, I just got worked up about this.

You can write build descriptions in D today:

http://code.dlang.org/packages/reggae

Package dependencies still comes from dub, so JSON or SDL are 
needed for that. Any project that needs an imperative language to 
describe its build can use reggae for the heavy lifting and dub 
to specify dependencies. You don't even have to use dub if you 
don't want to.

Atila