std.xml should just go

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/2/11 6:28 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 2/2/2011 3:33 PM, 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
>
> How sure are you about the assertion?  I haven't used it nor am likely to, but I also have trouble ruling out the
> potential that there's users for which it works and they just aren't talking about it here.  This forum is, like it or
> not, a minority of the user base.  Certainly the vocal people are the minority.

It has certain bugs 
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=xml) that seem to 
occur in quite common XML code (though I'm no expert) yet nobody is 
discussing them or voting for them.

> I'm not against replacement, but I'd be concerned about removal before a replacement is available.

My problem is that the mere presence is reducing the likelihood of a 
replacement coming about, in addition to the other liabilities.


Andrei