On 2/2/11 6:28 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
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.
It has certain bugs
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=xml) that seem to
occur in quite common XML code (though I'm no expert) yet nobody is
discussing them or voting for them.
I'm not against replacement, but I'd be concerned about removal before a
replacement is available.
My problem is that the mere presence is reducing the likelihood of a
replacement coming about, in addition to the other liabilities.
Andrei
