The XML module in Phobos

[Ary Borenszweig]

language_fan wrote:
> Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:38:36 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe thusly wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:23:50PM -0300, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>> But *why* use or make another one when the Tango one is already
>>> excellent? :(
>> Copyright.
> 
> There are most likely several issues that prevent the reuse of that code. 
> First, the indentation, module boundaries, and naming conventions may 
> differ (tabs vs spaces, 4 vs 8 spaces, camelCase vs foo_bar etc.).
> 
> Next, does it use the slow object oriented approach like the rest of 
> Tango (and unlike Phobos, which uses a very lightweight procedural 
> model). Are there any benchmark results that show the approach Tango uses 
> is any good, i.e. more performant than the ones for Java and C++ (even 
> with larger xml documents). If it is, then the idea can be copied to 
> Phobos as well.

Yes, there are:

http://dotnot.org/blog/archives/2008/02/

And you can see they are pretty good. The object oriented approach is 
not a problem.