RE: XML was RE: [GD-General] RE: A portable preferences library

[Richard S. <Ric...@ei...>]

> > Technical reasons include that Xerces properly
> > implements the open standard in an opensource manner.=20
> This is a political reason, not a technical reason. I=20
> wouldn't base the choice
> of including a bloated mess of dozens of source files over a=20
> couple of lines of COM calls,
> on what is a proper opensource manner, or what habits MS has.=20
> It's a matter of engineering, not Slashdot karma.

Using open standards and open source is a technical decision
as well as a political one. If you do not agree with the technical
benefits if such an approach, that's fine, but it does not
invalidate them.

Saying that all open source implementations of an XML parser
are 'bloated messes' is highly prejorative and demonstrably wrong.
I would suggest that an Apache implementation of an XML parser
is more likely to be fast and effective than an MS one, because
they have some thousands of developers looking over their shoulder.
A benefit MS does not have.

To include 'a couple of lines of COM calls' as a complete use of
an XML parser fails to account for the unmeasurable costs of using
a system which you cannot profile, let alone modify, which is designed
to cover a multitude of sins as opposed to the relatively small number
needed for a given application.

This is a matter of engineering. There are notable technical advantages
of using an open source standardised solution over using a closed=20
proprietry one. I'm not entirely sure how you can think otherwise.

Rich