language_fan wrote:
Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:38:36 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe thusly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:23:50PM -0300, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
But *why* use or make another one when the Tango one is already
excellent? :(
Copyright.
There are most likely several issues that prevent the reuse of that code.
First, the indentation, module boundaries, and naming conventions may
differ (tabs vs spaces, 4 vs 8 spaces, camelCase vs foo_bar etc.).
Next, does it use the slow object oriented approach like the rest of
Tango (and unlike Phobos, which uses a very lightweight procedural
model). Are there any benchmark results that show the approach Tango uses
is any good, i.e. more performant than the ones for Java and C++ (even
with larger xml documents). If it is, then the idea can be copied to
Phobos as well.
Yes, there are:
http://dotnot.org/blog/archives/2008/02/
And you can see they are pretty good. The object oriented approach is
not a problem.
