On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 20:56:04 UTC, Bruno Medeiros
wrote:
On 26/11/2015 12:53, Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d wrote:
V Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:43:52 +0000
Chris via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> napsáno:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 12:29:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2015-11-25 11:17, Suliman wrote:
[...]
BTW, why was not TOML [1] chosen? I know it was discussed
but I
can't remember why SDL was preferred. I think TOML is more
widely used than SDL [2]. GitLib CI multi runner is also
using
it.
[1] https://github.com/toml-lang/toml
[2] https://github.com/toml-lang/toml#projects-using-toml
TOML looks nice, _but_ it's version 0.4.0. We cannot afford to
maintain a parser for a format that hasn't "settled down" yet.
Ok, but we can afford to mantain a parser for a dead format?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simple_Declarative_Language
BAM!! *Daniel drops mike, walks way*
(well said)
Very well indeed. Sonke needs to respond to this.
By Sonkes own admission json does everything we need except
comments. These configuration files are what 50 lines long? And
there is an easy workaround. Seriously our problem we dont have
nice comments for tiny files? So lets use a language nobody else
wants to use? How dod we get to this point?
Andrei is an ass sometimes. But his point is valid. Now we have
Sonke all offended but do not mix it the technical point. And of
course Douchebot had to come out of the woodwork. Worst thing
about D leadership is they didn't rid the community of persons
like him. But that should not detract from the main point - SDL
is a bad decision any way you look at it. It should be undone.
