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?
