std.xml should just go

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, February 03, 2011 13:51:41 Gary Whatmore wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes at gmail.com>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
> > >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson
> > >> 
> > >> <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek Sowiński:
> > >>>> Speaking of Tango, may I look at it? I remember that beef over the
> > >>>> first
> > >>>> datetime and it gives me shivers...
> > >>> 
> > >>> You probably shouldn't look at the source.
> > >>> I dunno about the interface (documentation) - it's certainly not
> > >>> illegal to take
> > >>> inspiration from it, but maybe then people will again claim that
> > >>> source was
> > >>> stolen.. but when you claim that you haven't looked at the source it
> > >>> may be ok..
> > >> 
> > >> It has been posited by Tango's developers that simply looking at the
> > >> documentation of a D library isn't enough to understand the library,
> > >> you probably have looked at the source.  Until they change that
> > >> opinion, I would
> > >> avoid even the documentation.
> > >> 
> > >> http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/2010-April/000370.html
> > >> 
> > >> The pertinent quote from there:
> > >> 
> > >> "In my opinion, claiming a clean room implementation of an API in D is
> > >> difficult, if for no other reason that it is (due to imperfect doc
> > >> generation
> > >> etc) somewhat difficult to properly study a D API without at the same
> > >> time
> > >> reading the source (or glimpsing at it)."
> > > 
> > > They can claim whatever they want.. if Tomek says he only looked at the
> > > documentation (for an idea how a good interface for a XML lib may look
> > > like)
> > > they can hardly prove anything.
> > 
> > This exact situation was the case of the prior-mentioned infringement
> > accusation.
> 
> It's sad to read how much these Tango assholes are trying to wreck the
> whole language. I doubt their implementation is any better than the high
> performance C++ libraries. I've been using RapidXML before and it's damn
> fast. My recipe for success would be: use the Boost license, do a clean
> room implementation inspired by the best C++ code, use ranges instead of
> slices or iterators, use Phobos free function and naming conventions, get
> Andrei's blessing. This will teach the Tango douchebags a lesson or two.
> 
> They always complain about us doing NIH code. But they're forcing us!

There's no need to be rude. The Tango guys have done some great stuff. Benchmarks 
have shown that Tango creams most (if not all) other major xml libraries out 
there. It's lightning fast, and they've done solid work.

But they're using a different license and don't necessarily like the direction 
that D2 or Phobos has gone, since it's definitely different than what they've been 
doing, and they don't want people copying their code and putting it under a more 
permissive license. I don't happen to agree with them, but I see no reason to be 
rude to them about it.

Now, in some cases, if you can get ahold of the people who worked on a 
particular set of code in Tango, it _is_ possible to get them to agree to let 
you port their code to Phobos and the Boost license. However, that requires 
getting ahold of them and getting their consent, which isn't always easy. And 
they have every right to refuse if that's what they want.

Regardless, being rude doesn't help. All that's likely to do is beget rudeness 
on their part. Let's try and be civil.

- Jonathan M Davis