I hate new DUB config format

[Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 22:52:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Gr wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 18:54:04 UTC, Russel Winder 
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> What is the advantage of having it in an imperative language, 
> though? Isn't a concurrent deductive language better and faster?

As much as possible, yes. But non-trivial builds require a DAG, 
ordering, and plain just telling the computer what to do.

I've written quite a bit of CMake script to handle complicated 
builds. When you need it, you want a full language. I've heard 
horror stories of people doing boolean logic and loops in XML for 
Ant. CMake script is bad enough, I can't imagine how much I'd 
bang my head against the wall trying to contort XML into a bad 
version of Lisp.

The truth is, for most projects a `dub build` will do, and that's 
fine. Declarative is the way to go then. But when you have 
binaries reading files to auto-generate code that then gets 
compiled in two different ways, one of which is copied... you get 
the idea.

Atila