std.xml should just go

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/3/11 3:51 PM, 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!

I think it's reasonable of me to ask avoiding reopening a debate that 
has little chance of being solved by emotional rhetoric.

Regarding taking inspiration from Tango code, I don't know what the 
exact licensing issues are but the lesson learned during past incidents 
is clear: Phobos contributors should conservatively avoid looking at 
Tango. This is not difficult because there are many XML libraries of 
good quality and performance. So let's.


Thanks,

Andrei