std.xml should just go
Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Wed Feb 2 16:02:03 PST 2011
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 15:33:42 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?
I'm fine with that, but then again, I've never used it. Still, I see some benefit
in deprecating and/or removing modules that we know that we want to replace. At
_minimum_, we should really start adding module comments to such modules that
say that the module is going to be replaced at a later date, so you shouldn't
expect it to be usable in your code in the long term unless you copy the source.
- Jonathan M Davis
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list