I don't know why Phobos is so slow but what I've heard Tango is fast because it never copies the input buffer, what I've heard.
On 14 nov 2010, at 16:10, SHOO wrote: > LOL! This is terrible! > > The performance is not so important for me, but this report moves me to tears. > What is a bottleneck? > > -- > SHOO > > (2010/11/14 21:55), Jacob Carlborg wrote: >> A benchmark has shown that the Tango XML module is a lot faster than many of >> the XML libraries out there, specially than the Phobos module. So I would >> say that D could do better than other libraries at least when it comes to >> speed. >> >> http://dotnot.org/blog/archives/2008/03/10/xml-benchmarks-updated-graphs-with-rapidxml/ >> >> On 14 nov 2010, at 10:44, Russel Winder wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 15:35 +0900, SHOO wrote: >>>> About a problem of std.xml. >>> >>> Potentially n00b comment but . . . >>> >>> The Python community seem to be giving up on having their own library >>> for processing XML and are using bindings to libxml2 and libxslt. Is it >>> likely that a D source XML library can do better than libxml2 and >>> libxslt or might it be better just to create a D idiomatic binding? >>> >>> -- >>> Russel. >>> ============================================================================= >>> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: >>> sip:[email protected] >>> 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] >>> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder >>> _______________________________________________ >>> phobos mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos >> > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos -- /Jacob Carlborg _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
