Create a new account
"I wrote XML::Twig because I needed it. Now I don't need it."
"XML::Twig is a mess, that's easy to see." :-)
Reply to This
Getting innocent module authors drunk and getting them to talk more than they should ;--(
And you managed to post this a the YAPC::EU network was going down so I couldn't answer!
I believe the complete quotes probably sounded like:
I wrote XML::Twig because I needed it. Now I don't need it... but I keep using it because it is so much easier to use than Some Awful eXperiment (aka SAX)
XML::Twig is a mess, that's easy to see, but at least it doesn't suck like SAX.
I guess I have to start working on a Lightning Talk for last year. Maybe something like: "How I used SAX, AxKit and DBD::SQLite to send SPAM all over the World". That should make you happy ;--)
Thank god! I was afraid that you were swearing off your module just as I put the Cookbook's XML chapter to bed, complete with XML::Twig recipe! That's my worst nightmare--a big change that renders large parts of the Cookbook null and void. Like, say, v-strings.
Readers following this thread may enjoy this riposte on the perl-xml list - I just about coughed out my breakfast cereal. [activestate.com]
Of course! That's what we need. A huge argument, a good ole Flame War, maybe get the UN and the Pope involved. That will bring the spotlight on Perl and XML, raise our profile, have everyone talk about it, get us invited to talk shows, have a story on /., maybe our own section there!
I suggest 2 sides: the XML::Simple/XML::Twig against the SAX (SUXs) and (Down with the) DOM side. Matt can start by using XML::Parser to blockade us, then XML::Simple and XML::Twig can counter by emitting bogus SAX events, and
Hmmm I think I might just about be ready to take sides with you, since it appears that Matt's recent release of XML::Parser (2.32) does not in fact work with XML::Simple.
Get More Comments