Why aren't you using D at work?

[Danni Coy via Digitalmars-d]

so is std.xml the exception? How many other parts of the standard
library are like that?

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 2:27 p.m., H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 02:17:59PM +1200, Rikki Cattermole via
>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31/05/2015 11:37 a.m., Danni Coy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> The Standard Library. I want to use D so I can do more with less
>>>> hours writing code and less hours debugging code. Having a high
>>>> quality standard library really helps this - unfortunately for me the
>>>> first thing I needed from the standard library was xml parsing, which
>>>> the documentation tells me is sub par and will be replaced in the
>>>> near future, There is no indication of what I might like to use
>>>> instead. Do I now use one of the other xml libraries floating around,
>>>> bind a C based one or roll my own. All this eats into the efficiency
>>>> that I am gaining by virtue of D being a really nice language.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ahh std.xml, it's been that way for years.
>>> We NEED to get that replaced. Although don't hold your breath :/
>>
>>
>> What we *really* need, like almost everything else in D, is for somebody
>> to get sufficiently provoked by the sorry state of the current std.xml
>> to write something better and push it through the review process. Until
>> then, further discussion is unlikely to make any difference.
>>
>>
>> T
>>
>
> That's a given at this stage.
> I've read the XML spec, its almost as bad as x86. Okay not quite but still.
> That's how far I got.