On 2009-07-28 12:03:47 -0400, Ary Borenszweig <a...@esperanto.org.ar> said:
language_fan wrote:
Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:38:36 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe thusly wrote:
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.
That's true, Tango's parser is simple and well done, and it's using
final (thus non-virtual) functions. It being object-oriented only has a
negligeable impact when you instanciate the parser.
I'm not writing my own parser because of any flaw in the Tango parser.
I'm aiming at providing some features not found in Tango (like optional
checking for well-formness) without compromizing on performance when
you don't need them (templates are good for that). I'll also try to
outperform Tango with callback parsing, but I expect it can only be
done by a tiny margin, if at all.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
