On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> I've never heard anyone complain about it being slow. I'm not saying
> XML::Tree isn't faster, just that I've never heard that complaint about
> XML::Simple, simply because people don't use it for parsing large files, just
> small config files.
Or perhaps they don't need to handle hundreds of thousands of
hits a day, i.e., on the scale of eBay.
> I guess maybe your measures are different to, erm, the rest of the internet's
The benchmark I used is right on my web page.
> As for being more complex to use, I would say XML::Simple's popularity speaks
> for itself (especially when compared with say XML::DOM or Grove or even
> XPath).
Or, until now, there wasn't something better.
- Paul
