On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d < [email protected]> wrote:
> Therefore, I think the main critera we should be looking at here, for any > of the possibilities, isn't "Does this language have flaws?" but rather "Is > this language *good enough* to be supported by DUB as a JSON alternative?" > The 'alternative' bit is the kicker. Personally, I don't believe DUB can succeed at having multiple supported config languages - one or the other will win out over time, and users will diverge. So no language would meet that bar (in my opinion). Mostly we are talking about JSON+stuff as an additional language... so can it be reframed as 'additional features you can use in your dub config file, that aren't strict JSON'? Framing things this way, you could (for example) switch DUB entirely over to ASON, and avoid the 'switching to a new language' arguments. DUB takes JSON, DUB also accepts not-strictly-JSON syntax like comments, etc.
