std.xml should just go

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, February 03, 2011 14:36:06 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.

- Jonathan M Davis