std.xml should just go

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/3/11 7:56 PM, BLS wrote:
> What about ...
> http://dsource.org/projects/xmlp
>
> well documented, well tested, reasonable speed.

Cool. Is Michael Rynn willing to make a submission?

> But I think std.xml is not the biggest problem.
> Problem #1 The chaotic non-managed way phobos evolves.

In recent times we have increased the number of active contributors base 
dramatically; we have been adding features and fixed bugs by the dozens 
with each release; we have improved the review process with two 
successful iterations (datetime and unittests); and we moved to github 
which further increases collaboration and contributions.

Obviously there are many other ways in which we can improve phobos' 
evolution. Please share any ideas you might have.

> Problem #2 Ignorance respective ignoring good stuff. What about adding
> BCS's units ?

Benjamin did not submit units for review. My understanding is that he is 
not interested in doing so, but has graciously offered the code for 
someone else to put it into a form appropriate for submission.

> Problem #3 Andrei's range obsession. Andrei : Please show a pure range
> based implementation of, say, a Map. The basic ADT is already in place.

I don't understand this challenge. What would "pure range-based" mean? A 
map needs to offer iteration over its keys, values, and probably pairs 
of keys and values, and in addition has other primitives. The current 
way in which built-in associative arrays offers its keys and values (as 
a copy in an array) is inadequate for obvious reasons.

> I got more and more the feeling that the D2 monster was made just for
> ranges. The smart and elegant D1 design is definitely dead an gone. I
> think I am not the only one who would prefer a D1 plus instead of D2.
> bjoern

There are a few differences between D2 and D1 and it's entirely 
understandable that someone who enjoys D1 is not thrilled with D2. 
Here's a personal opinion - it may be a good time to face the notion 
that D1 will never make it to prime time. It is not equipped properly 
and it does not offer sufficient compelling advantages compared to other 
languages. This is an issue independent from D2. D1 does not have enough 
gasoline in the tank to go up the hill. On the other hand, D2 does. It 
has a better definition, a powerful concurrency model, true generic 
concepts, and a standard library to match.

I believe ranges are a great idea, and not because it's mine (in fact 
it's rather derivative). A Phobos component that manipulates sequences 
is reasonably expected to work with ranges, because there's just so much 
infrastructure built on them. At this point there is no turning back 
from ranges, unless we come about with an even better idea (I discussed 
one with Walter but we're not pursuing it yet). Feel free to share 
anything you feel is lacking about ranges and better alternatives; 
emotional but vague characterizations are unlikely to help matters.

All in all it's fair to say that if you hate ranges you're going to 
dislike D2, and there's little that can be done about that.


Andrei