On 2/2/2011 3:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > For a while we've espoused the strategy of keeping std.xml in Phobos until > something better comes along. > > But recently we've started to rethink that. > > Pretty much everyone who tries std.xml ends up disappointed. Anyone who wants > to bash D has std.xml as an easy pick. > Anyone who looks at speed comparisons sees std.xml there like a sore thumb. > Finally, the mere existence of a package, no > matter how inadequate, stifles the initiative of others working on it. > > This all makes std.xml a net liability. It's not better than nothing; it's > worse than nothing. > > Should we nuke it? > > > Andrei
How sure are you about the assertion? I haven't used it nor am likely to, but I also have trouble ruling out the potential that there's users for which it works and they just aren't talking about it here. This forum is, like it or not, a minority of the user base. Certainly the vocal people are the minority. I'm not against replacement, but I'd be concerned about removal before a replacement is available. Later, Brad
