Re: Including Dub with D
Am Sat, 24 May 2014 21:32:04 +0200
schrieb Sönke Ludwig slud...@rejectedsoftware.com:
* 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.
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 =
really remind you that there is a formal syntax to it.
--
Marco
Re: Including Dub with D
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
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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?
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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
Re: Including Dub with D
what it the reason to change json to SDL?
Re: Including Dub with D
On 23/05/14 08:33, Suliman wrote: what it the reason to change json to SDL? Less verbose. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Including Dub with D
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
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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!
Re: Including Dub with D
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...
Re: Including Dub with D
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).
Re: Including Dub with D
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))
Re: Including Dub with D
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 :)
Re: Including Dub with D
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
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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)
Re: Including Dub with D
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.
Re: Including Dub with D
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).
Re: Including Dub with D
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 ;))
