• Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d (5/5) May 22 2014 Dub (code.dlang.org) has emerged as the standard build tool for D. Yet
• Dicebot (10/19) May 22 2014 Yes. It is actually planned and I have heard full approval from
• Nick Sabalausky (4/6) May 22 2014 Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not holding
• Etienne (6/13) May 22 2014 That's the last I heard about SDL:
• Brad Anderson (5/22) May 22 2014 I think that's the case.
• Dicebot (4/28) May 22 2014 Yeah Sonke contributions to community are beyond any imagination
• Chris (10/13) May 23 2014 I agree. I have a project (and even handed in a paper about it*)
• Dicebot (2/9) May 22 2014 AFAIK it simply matter of someone getting to provide a PR for it.
• Jacob Carlborg (4/7) May 22 2014 Do we want/need the SDL parser/writer to be included into Phobos first?
• Suliman (1/1) May 22 2014 what it the reason to change json to SDL?
• Jacob Carlborg (4/5) May 23 2014 Less verbose.
• Paolo Invernizzi (4/7) May 23 2014 And it supports comments in not-an-ugly-way!
• Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d (3/6) May 23 2014 And hopefully less problems with trailing commas.
• Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d (5/9) May 23 2014 Can you elaborate? I find JSON to be precisely the right verbosity -
• Dicebot (7/7) May 23 2014 Original thread :
• Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d (11/15) May 24 2014 Thanks.
• w0rp (4/26) May 24 2014 I don't really see the point of it either. A reason for switching
• Nick Sabalausky (10/25) May 24 2014 Nobody has said anything about removing JSON support. It's been stated
• Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d (5/8) May 24 2014 Yes - my point is that moving to SDL while keeping JSON just means you n...
• Nick Sabalausky (4/13) May 24 2014 Not really. "dub describe" takes care of that. And (if it doesn't
• =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= (7/25) May 24 2014 Exactly, the recommended way to work with package descriptions is always...
• Kiith-Sa (9/48) May 24 2014 That is not the issue.
• Bruno Medeiros (24/42) May 29 2014 My preference was also to go with lenient JSON (more or less as
• Nick Sabalausky (4/18) May 23 2014 JSON will still be supported, SDL would just be the recommended way.
• Kiith-Sa (6/14) May 23 2014 This is my concern. Waiting for another module to get into phobos
• Dicebot (8/25) May 23 2014 I don't see it as a problem. dub and dub-registry will stay
• =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= (7/12) May 24 2014 No, SDLang-D is absolutely fine, it's just me being overloaded with
• Nick Sabalausky (4/19) May 24 2014 Ok, sounds good to me.
• =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= (9/11) May 24 2014 Not sure if that would be really considered necessary, but I wouldn't
• Marco Leise (10/13) May 30 2014 t.
• Etienne (5/11) May 22 2014 I'd say it deserves mention, and so does Mono-D - it's an even more
• Brad Anderson (6/15) May 22 2014 I've been wanting to add it for awhile now but was waiting for
• Andrei Alexandrescu (4/10) May 22 2014 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/580
• Dicebot (6/15) May 29 2014 btw, Sonke has agreed to move dub and dub-registry repos to

Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

Dub (code.dlang.org) has emerged as the standard build tool for D.  Yet
there doesn't look to be any mention of it on the D site proper...

Would it be reasonable to include dub with the DMD installer?  Or failing
that, at least feature it prominently (or at all) on the tools page of
dlang.org?

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 18:03:16 UTC, Jeremy Powers via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
 Dub (code.dlang.org) has emerged as the standard build tool for 
 D.  Yet
 there doesn't look to be any mention of it on the D site 
 proper...

 Would it be reasonable to include dub with the DMD installer?  
 Or failing
 that, at least feature it prominently (or at all) on the tools 
 page of
 dlang.org?

Yes. It is actually planned and I have heard full approval from 
Andrei just yesterday. Main blocker is transition to SDL as 
default project description format - we don't want to distribute 
a tool with compiler and break something as fundamental as that 
immediately after.

I was about to contact Sonke about possible moving of dub / 
dub-registry to D-Programming-Language organization shortly after 
DConf.

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:

On 5/22/2014 2:06 PM, Dicebot wrote:
 Main blocker is transition to SDL as default project
 description format

Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not holding 
anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need done/dealt-with 
regarding SDLang-D, let me know.

Etienne <etcimon gmail.com> writes:

On 2014-05-22 3:11 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On 5/22/2014 2:06 PM, Dicebot wrote:
 Main blocker is transition to SDL as default project
 description format

 Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not holding
 anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need done/dealt-with
 regarding SDLang-D, let me know.

That's the last I heard about SDL: 
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d/issues/435#issuecomment-30734573

Maybe just missing some time for it. I'd be happy to the example he 
posted implemented (populating the objects automatically based on the 
SDL field names)

"Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:

On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 19:20:12 UTC, Etienne wrote:
 On 2014-05-22 3:11 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On 5/22/2014 2:06 PM, Dicebot wrote:
 Main blocker is transition to SDL as default project
 description format

 Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not 
 holding
 anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need 
 done/dealt-with
 regarding SDLang-D, let me know.

 That's the last I heard about SDL: 
 https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d/issues/435#issuecomment-30734573

 Maybe just missing some time for it. I'd be happy to the 
 example he posted implemented (populating the objects 
 automatically based on the SDL field names)

I think that's the case.

https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-based-package-format-draft
(not sure how up to date this is with Ludwig's idea of how it
should work).

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 19:40:23 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
 On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 19:20:12 UTC, Etienne wrote:
 On 2014-05-22 3:11 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On 5/22/2014 2:06 PM, Dicebot wrote:
 Main blocker is transition to SDL as default project
 description format

 Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not 
 holding
 anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need 
 done/dealt-with
 regarding SDLang-D, let me know.

 That's the last I heard about SDL: 
 https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d/issues/435#issuecomment-30734573

 Maybe just missing some time for it. I'd be happy to the 
 example he posted implemented (populating the objects 
 automatically based on the SDL field names)

 I think that's the case.

 https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-based-package-format-draft
 (not sure how up to date this is with Ludwig's idea of how it
 should work).

Yeah Sonke contributions to community are beyond any imagination 
already. She should push for him and move forward (assuming he is 
ok with it ;))

"Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:

On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 19:50:51 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
 Yeah Sonke contributions to community are beyond any 
 imagination already. She should push for him and move forward 
 (assuming he is ok with it ;))

I agree. I have a project (and even handed in a paper about it*) 
based on vibe.d. It was vibe.d that made me realize the project 
in the first place. The whole thing is written in D (and bits in 
C) and it was vibe.d that made me think "F***k me sideways, with 
this we can make it available to everyone!", and I developed a 
web-based app.


* Hope it will be accepted. Once it's official, I will publish it 
here too. I want to give full credit to D and its community, of 
course!

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 19:11:50 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On 5/22/2014 2:06 PM, Dicebot wrote:
 Main blocker is transition to SDL as default project
 description format

 Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not 
 holding anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need 
 done/dealt-with regarding SDLang-D, let me know.

AFAIK it simply matter of someone getting to provide a PR for it.

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 22/05/14 21:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not holding
 anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need done/dealt-with
 regarding SDLang-D, let me know.

Do we want/need the SDL parser/writer to be included into Phobos first?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

"Suliman" <evermind live.ru> writes:

what it the reason to change json to SDL?

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 23/05/14 08:33, Suliman wrote:
 what it the reason to change json to SDL?

Less verbose.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

"Paolo Invernizzi" <paolo.invernizzi no.address> writes:

On Friday, 23 May 2014 at 09:09:51 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 23/05/14 08:33, Suliman wrote:
 what it the reason to change json to SDL?

 Less verbose.

And it supports comments in not-an-ugly-way!
---
Paolo

Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On 5/23/14, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 23/05/14 08:33, Suliman wrote:
 what it the reason to change json to SDL?

 Less verbose.

And hopefully less problems with trailing commas.

Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

 On 23/05/14 08:33, Suliman wrote:

 what it the reason to change json to SDL?

 Less verbose.

Can you elaborate?  I find JSON to be precisely the right verbosity -
enough to be human readable, not too much.

Is the decision to switch documented/discussed somewhere?  It seems
unnecessary to me, switching from a de-facto standard to something I've
never heard of...

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

Original thread : 
http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/
Summary by Sonke: 
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-based-package-format-draft

As there seem to be some objections I did not expect before we 
can go with another run of discussion with better community 
exposure (== here).

Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 Original thread : http://forum.rejectedsoftware.
 com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/
 Summary by Sonke: https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-
 based-package-format-draft


Thanks.

Personally, I don't find the arguments for switching convincing.  Perhaps
moving to an extended JSON that supports comments and other niceties, but
moving to an entirely new format seems excessive.  The nice thing about
JSON is that it is commonly used everywhere, making dub easy to approach
and easy to write tooling for - even after a switch to SDL as the primary
format, I can see many folks and tooling continuing to use JSON.  Without
removal of JSON support you are stuck supporting two formats...

tl;dr I think it is a bad idea.

"w0rp" <devw0rp gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 24 May 2014 at 16:42:32 UTC, Jeremy Powers via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <
 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 Original thread : http://forum.rejectedsoftware.
 com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/
 Summary by Sonke: 
 https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-
 based-package-format-draft


 Thanks.

 Personally, I don't find the arguments for switching 
 convincing.  Perhaps
 moving to an extended JSON that supports comments and other 
 niceties, but
 moving to an entirely new format seems excessive.  The nice 
 thing about
 JSON is that it is commonly used everywhere, making dub easy to 
 approach
 and easy to write tooling for - even after a switch to SDL as 
 the primary
 format, I can see many folks and tooling continuing to use 
 JSON.  Without
 removal of JSON support you are stuck supporting two formats...

 tl;dr I think it is a bad idea.

I don't really see the point of it either. A reason for switching 
doesn't jump out at me.

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:

On 5/24/2014 12:42 PM, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <
 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 Original thread : http://forum.rejectedsoftware.
 com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/
 Summary by Sonke: https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-
 based-package-format-draft


 Thanks.

 Personally, I don't find the arguments for switching convincing.  Perhaps
 moving to an extended JSON that supports comments and other niceties, but
 moving to an entirely new format seems excessive.  The nice thing about
 JSON is that it is commonly used everywhere, making dub easy to approach
 and easy to write tooling for - even after a switch to SDL as the primary
 format, I can see many folks and tooling continuing to use JSON.  Without
 removal of JSON support you are stuck supporting two formats...

 tl;dr I think it is a bad idea.

Nobody has said anything about removing JSON support. It's been stated 
that JSON support is *staying* as an option. SDL will merely be the 
recommended format.

Sayeth Sonke:

"The plan is to keep full support for the JSON based package description 
and still use it for machine-to-machine communication, but at the same 
time add the new format as the preferred way for developers to write."
  - 
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-based-package-format-draft

Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 Nobody has said anything about removing JSON support. It's been stated
 that JSON support is *staying* as an option. SDL will merely be the
 recommended format.

Yes - my point is that moving to SDL while keeping JSON just means you now
have two formats you need to support.  This will likely have the effect of
fragmenting things, with any tooling needing to support both.

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:

On 5/24/2014 1:54 PM, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d <
 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 Nobody has said anything about removing JSON support. It's been stated
 that JSON support is *staying* as an option. SDL will merely be the
 recommended format.

 Yes - my point is that moving to SDL while keeping JSON just means you now
 have two formats you need to support.  This will likely have the effect of
 fragmenting things, with any tooling needing to support both.

Not really. "dub describe" takes care of that. And (if it doesn't 
already) DUB really should also provide an API to directly query all a 
package's info, letting DUB handle all the parsing.

=?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig rejectedsoftware.com> writes:

Am 24.05.2014 20:34, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
 On 5/24/2014 1:54 PM, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d <
 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 Nobody has said anything about removing JSON support. It's been stated
 that JSON support is *staying* as an option. SDL will merely be the
 recommended format.

 Yes - my point is that moving to SDL while keeping JSON just means you
 now
 have two formats you need to support.  This will likely have the
 effect of
 fragmenting things, with any tooling needing to support both.

 Not really. "dub describe" takes care of that. And (if it doesn't
 already) DUB really should also provide an API to directly query all a
 package's info, letting DUB handle all the parsing.

Exactly, the recommended way to work with package descriptions is always 
to use "dub describe", or to use DUB as a library, which enables working 
with packages on several abstraction levels.

There are a lot of package features that need to be supported and it 
doesn't really make much sense to try and reimplement all of that in 
every IDE - especially as long as the format isn't 100% stable.

"Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 24 May 2014 at 17:30:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On 5/24/2014 12:42 PM, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <
 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 Original thread : http://forum.rejectedsoftware.
 com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/
 Summary by Sonke: 
 https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-
 based-package-format-draft


 Thanks.

 Personally, I don't find the arguments for switching 
 convincing.  Perhaps
 moving to an extended JSON that supports comments and other 
 niceties, but
 moving to an entirely new format seems excessive.  The nice 
 thing about
 JSON is that it is commonly used everywhere, making dub easy 
 to approach
 and easy to write tooling for - even after a switch to SDL as 
 the primary
 format, I can see many folks and tooling continuing to use 
 JSON.  Without
 removal of JSON support you are stuck supporting two formats...

 tl;dr I think it is a bad idea.

 Nobody has said anything about removing JSON support. It's been 
 stated that JSON support is *staying* as an option. SDL will 
 merely be the recommended format.

 Sayeth Sonke:

 "The plan is to keep full support for the JSON based package 
 description and still use it for machine-to-machine 
 communication, but at the same time add the new format as the 
 preferred way for developers to write."
  - 
 https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-based-package-format-draft

That is not the issue.

The issue is with tools, e.g. an IDE or script wanting to support 
Dub will have to have a dependency on an SDL parser (while pretty 
much every language has a JSON parser in its standard lib and if 
not a parser can be written in a few hours - on the other hand 
SDL is very uncommon at the moment).

So you can't e.g. write a quick python util script without 
requiring an external library.

Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com> writes:

On 24/05/2014 17:42, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d
 <digitalmars-d puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars-d puremagic.com>> wrote:

     Original thread :
     http://forum.rejectedsoftware.__com/groups/rejectedsoftware.__dub/thread/2/
     <http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/>
     Summary by Sonke:
     https://github.com/__rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-__based-package-format-draft
     <https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/wiki/Sdl-based-package-format-draft>


 Thanks.

 Personally, I don't find the arguments for switching convincing.
   Perhaps moving to an extended JSON that supports comments and other
 niceties, but moving to an entirely new format seems excessive.  The
 nice thing about JSON is that it is commonly used everywhere, making dub
 easy to approach and easy to write tooling for - even after a switch to
 SDL as the primary format, I can see many folks and tooling continuing
 to use JSON.  Without removal of JSON support you are stuck supporting
 two formats...

 tl;dr I think it is a bad idea.

My preference was also to go with lenient JSON (more or less as 
described here: 
http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/post/575 )

It is easier (than SDL) to understand if people already know JSON, and 
there is some tool support in other languages already, should that be 
necessary (I'm not sure it would be though). Also, it's easier to change 
a proper JSON document into lenient JSON, it can just be done gradually. 
To change to SDL, it has to be done all at once.

But admittedly, these are all very slim reasons. In the end there 
wouldn't be that much of a difference if DUB went with SDL or 
lenient-JSON. I think the main motivation for going with the later would 
be that then we would have a D library for parsing lenient JSON, which 
for the D community in general (that is, being just DUB usage) might be 
more interesting than having an SDL one.

But in the end, because the differences are slim, I think lenient-JSON 
would only be considered if there is D library support for it. 
Bottomline is, SDL has a parser already.

I feel tempted to write the lenient JSON parser, it should not take take 
long from an plain JSON one, but I'm kind swamped with lots of stuff I 
want to do with DDT and other projects...

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

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:

On 5/23/2014 10:35 AM, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On 23/05/14 08:33, Suliman wrote:

 what it the reason to change json to SDL?

 Less verbose.

 Can you elaborate?  I find JSON to be precisely the right verbosity -
 enough to be human readable, not too much.

 Is the decision to switch documented/discussed somewhere?  It seems
 unnecessary to me, switching from a de-facto standard to something I've
 never heard of...

JSON will still be supported, SDL would just be the recommended way. 
Take a look, it really is a very nice data language, IMO:

https://github.com/abscissa/sdlang-d#sdlang-d

"Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 23 May 2014 at 06:24:28 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 22/05/14 21:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not 
 holding
 anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need 
 done/dealt-with
 regarding SDLang-D, let me know.

 Do we want/need the SDL parser/writer to be included into 
 Phobos first?

This is my concern. Waiting for another module to get into phobos 
before DUB gets included is too much. Couldn't SDL be added later 
as an option? (For small files like this I find this to be a 
bikeshed issue. DUB files are very readable as is and I don't 
like the idea of waiting 6 more months (as is typical in D))

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Friday, 23 May 2014 at 14:43:20 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote:
 On Friday, 23 May 2014 at 06:24:28 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 22/05/14 21:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not 
 holding
 anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need 
 done/dealt-with
 regarding SDLang-D, let me know.

 Do we want/need the SDL parser/writer to be included into 
 Phobos first?

 This is my concern. Waiting for another module to get into 
 phobos before DUB gets included is too much. Couldn't SDL be 
 added later as an option? (For small files like this I find 
 this to be a bikeshed issue. DUB files are very readable as is 
 and I don't like the idea of waiting 6 more months (as is 
 typical in D))

I don't see it as a problem. dub and dub-registry will stay 
separate repositories and won't be included in phobos or tools 
repo so we can just let it go. I know that in general it is good 
policy to keep official stuff phobos-only but here it is simply 
unfeasible.

dub-registry itself depends on vibe.d anyway and it is not like 
we are going to include _that_ into phobos :)

=?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig rejectedsoftware.com> writes:

Am 23.05.2014 08:24, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
 On 22/05/14 21:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not holding
 anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need done/dealt-with
 regarding SDLang-D, let me know.


No, SDLang-D is absolutely fine, it's just me being overloaded with 
other things.

 Do we want/need the SDL parser/writer to be included into Phobos first?

I'd include it as a "git subtree" into the repository, so that this 
wouldn't be necessary. This copy would only used when building DUB using 
the build.sh/.cmd. When DUB itself is used as a package/library, it 
would use the sdlang-d DUB package instead.

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:

On 5/24/2014 10:15 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
 Am 23.05.2014 08:24, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
 On 22/05/14 21:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Is there anything blocking actual adoption of SDL? I'm not holding
 anything up am I? Sonke: If there's anything you need done/dealt-with
 regarding SDLang-D, let me know.


 No, SDLang-D is absolutely fine, it's just me being overloaded with
 other things.

 Do we want/need the SDL parser/writer to be included into Phobos first?

 I'd include it as a "git subtree" into the repository, so that this
 wouldn't be necessary. This copy would only used when building DUB using
 the build.sh/.cmd. When DUB itself is used as a package/library, it
 would use the sdlang-d DUB package instead.

Ok, sounds good to me.

But maybe I should put a "std.sdlang" through the phobos review queue to 
help getting DUB into the standard DMD releases?

=?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig rejectedsoftware.com> writes:

Am 24.05.2014 19:51, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
 But maybe I should put a "std.sdlang" through the phobos review queue to
 help getting DUB into the standard DMD releases?

Not sure if that would be really considered necessary, but I wouldn't 
mind that for sure in general* (I think it should be enough if the 
repository doesn't have external dependencies). But please let's try to 
establish something like std.data.sdl, so that the top level std package 
doesn't get ever more crowded when new formats get added.

* It may also be a good step to solve the chicken-egg issue here, where 
the argument is that because SDL isn't so common, it shouldn't be used. 
I think it's a really nice little format that deserves to get some support.

Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:

Am Sat, 24 May 2014 21:32:04 +0200
schrieb S=C3=B6nke Ludwig <sludwig rejectedsoftware.com>:

 * It may also be a good step to solve the chicken-egg issue here, where=20
 the argument is that because SDL isn't so common, it shouldn't be used.=20
 I think it's a really nice little format that deserves to get some suppor=

t.

It looks to me like what .INI files should have been defined
to be from day one. It looks like less like a data definition
language for computers than XML or even JSON with its raw
text file appearance of tags. Only the occasional {} or =3D
really remind you that there is a formal syntax to it.

--=20
Marco

Etienne <etcimon gmail.com> writes:

On 2014-05-22 2:03 PM, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 Dub (code.dlang.org <http://code.dlang.org>) has emerged as the standard
 build tool for D.  Yet there doesn't look to be any mention of it on the
 D site proper...

 Would it be reasonable to include dub with the DMD installer?  Or
 failing that, at least feature it prominently (or at all) on the tools
 page of dlang.org <http://dlang.org>?

I'd say it deserves mention, and so does Mono-D - it's an even more 
complete IDE than VisualD, it even uses dub.json files for its workspace 
configuration. I think it's important to have a download link for both 
in the tools page, it gives D a modern feel.

"Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:

On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 18:03:16 UTC, Jeremy Powers via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
 Dub (code.dlang.org) has emerged as the standard build tool for 
 D.  Yet
 there doesn't look to be any mention of it on the D site 
 proper...

 Would it be reasonable to include dub with the DMD installer?  
 Or failing
 that, at least feature it prominently (or at all) on the tools 
 page of
 dlang.org?

I've been wanting to add it for awhile now but was waiting for 
Dub to be declared the official package manager (it is, of 
course, the de facto package manager). Also Sönke would have a 
say in whether or not he thinks it's a good idea.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 5/22/14, 11:03 AM, Jeremy Powers via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 Dub (code.dlang.org <http://code.dlang.org>) has emerged as the standard
 build tool for D.  Yet there doesn't look to be any mention of it on the
 D site proper...

 Would it be reasonable to include dub with the DMD installer?  Or
 failing that, at least feature it prominently (or at all) on the tools
 page of dlang.org <http://dlang.org>?

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/580

My intern!!


Andrei

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 18:03:16 UTC, Jeremy Powers via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
 Dub (code.dlang.org) has emerged as the standard build tool for 
 D.  Yet
 there doesn't look to be any mention of it on the D site 
 proper...

 Would it be reasonable to include dub with the DMD installer?  
 Or failing
 that, at least feature it prominently (or at all) on the tools 
 page of
 dlang.org?

btw, Sonke has agreed to move dub and dub-registry repos to 
D-Programming-Language organization where work on preparing first 
distributed release will continue.

Currently awaiting for Walter to initiate actual transfer.