On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:47 UTC, Jeremy Powers via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky via
Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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).
I can totally see JSON format being used mostly by the tools and
new one written by actual developers - everyone gets its niche.
