std.xml should just go

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Gary Whatmore" <no at spam.sp> wrote in message 
news:iif81d$1ch8$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 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!
>

Nothing of that sort happened. One of the Tango guys was thoughtful enough 
to inform Walter of a situation that *could* be viewed by a purely 
hypothetical super-uptight third person as being potentially infringing. 
Walter is (perhaps understandably) paranoid about potential accusations so 
disallowed the code in question. This NG then exploded in speculation, and 
the Tango guys fueled that fire by being extremely reluctant to say anything 
at all about the matter. The problem was miscommunication and legal 
bullshit, *not* a "good guys vs bad guys" situation (if there was *any* "bad 
guys" side it's the court/legal system).