Standardized ne Native. Using a language agnostic standard can help if you work with several languages, but it tends to come for a price. The standard can only use the common parts of the languages. Which means sometimes it feels unnatural and sometimes it's more complicated than it could be. "go native" is just hype. Go with the standard if it makes sense to you, use a (language) specific solution if it makes better sense.
| [reply] |
I think we have different ideas of what "hype" means. :) I resisted going to libxml for a long time and I wish someone had told me several years ago how much more productive it would make me if I'd just break down and learn its interface. My enthusiasm for the kit it not hype. It's enthusiasm for the kit.
I think Twig is nice too, so nothing against it, but XML::Simple and similar packages floating about are a dead end hidden by several blind corners and only the most trivial, static or non-production, cases should go there. The knowledge and skill gained from wrangling it is largely wasted as it transfers nowhere other than drafting for spaghetti factories.
Update: Oh, I neglected to consider XML::Rules, etc, which is where I think we have a disconnect since I believe you wrote it. I haven't had a chance to use it and have no opinion. I certainly wasn't comparing it to XML::Simple above. It might be great and certainly worth looking at for the OP if starting from scratch on a particular problem.
| [reply] |
I agree here, but I'll add that the time spent learning XML::LibXML will easily made up at run time. XML::Twig is great if you need a pure Perl module, but XML::LibXML will produces results much quicker during run time and isn't as memory heavy. | [reply] |
XML::Twig is great if you need a pure Perl module, but XML::LibXML will produces results much quicker
XML::Twig is no more Pure Perl than XML::LibXML. Both use C libraries to perform the parsing. It's possible that XML::LibXML is faster, but it's not related to the choice of programming language.
XML::LibXML [...] isn't as memory heavy.
That's an odd thing to say. The whole idea of XML::Twig is to keep nothing in memory that doesn't need to be, whereas XML::LibXML keeps the whole document in memory.
| [reply] |
I stand corrected. It has been a while since I installed either, but XML::Twig is a bit easier to install than XML::LibXML.
I can't agree with your view on the memory aspect. While XML::Twig may to keep nothing in memory, it does get pretty leaky. Then again, It has been a while, and not the latest version.
Speed wise though LibXML is much faster than Twig. I had to switch our app from Twig to LibXML because documents in Twig were taking close to 5 seconds each, but LibXML was .05 seconds.
| [reply] |
XML::Twig is great if you need a pure Perl module, but XML::LibXML will produces results much quicker
XML::Twig is no more Pure Perl than XML::LibXML. Both use C libraries to perform the parsing. It's possible that's XML::LibXML is faster, but it's got nothing to do with language selection.
XML::LibXML [...] isn't as memory heavy.
The whole idea of XML::Twig is to keep nothing in memory that doesn't need to be, whereas XML::LibXML keeps the whole document in memory.
| [reply] |
