On Thursday 03 February 2011 02:01:35 Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2011-02-03 00:33, 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 > > Yes, hasn't this been done already ?
I don't think that anything has been removed from Phobos yet which didn't have a replacement ready. - Jonathan M Davis
