On 11/11/19 8:44 AM, Robert Schadek wrote:
The goal of dud is mostly do what dub does, but more understandable.
dud will/does aim for a tasteful subset of dub's features.
Meaning, most dub files should be good with dud.
If they are not, you will/should get an error message telling you whats
wrong.
The bigger goal, at least personally, is to have a code base of pure
functions
that is "trivial" to understand and debug.
The rules of thumb is: "When your line gets longer than 80 characters,
restructure your code!", "Branch statements are code smells."
Sounds cool!
Only a few percent are not ingestable by dud, and those are in IHMO not
valid
anyway (to be fair, there is some strange 💩 out there).
From what I've seen, dub tends to take the approach of "silently ignore
anything in dub.sdl I don't recognize as valid". I'll admit that may be
an important approach for a tool that has no concept of its own changing
versions (which is somewhat strange for dub, considering half of dub is
a package manager.) But the flipside is that this fosters and breeds
errors and invalid files in the wild (see: 90's era web browsers).
I'm curious, are there any particular anti-patterns you've noticed as
being common in the uningestible repos?
