Am 09.12.2011 10:09, schrieb Xavier Morel: > On 2011-12-09, at 09:41 , Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>> a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right >>> tool right from the start. Instead of using the totally >>> misleading wording that it uses now, it should be honest about >>> the performance characteristics of MiniDOM and should actively >>> suggest that those who don't know what to choose (or even *that* >>> they can choose) should not use MiniDOM in the first place. >> [...] > > Minidom is inferior in interface flow and pythonicity, in terseness, > in speed, in memory consumption (even more so using cElementTree, and > that's not something which can be fixed unless minidom gets a C > accelerator), etc… Even after fixing minidom (if anybody has the time > and drive to commit to it), ET/cET should be preferred over it. I don't mind pointing people to ElementTree, despite that I disagree whether the ET interface is "superior" to DOM. It's Stefan's reasoning as to *why* people should be pointed to ET, and what words should be used to do that. IOW, I detest bashing some part of the standard library, just to urge users to use some other part of the standard library. People are still using PyXML, despite it's not being maintained anymore. Telling them to replace 4DOM with minidom is much more appropriate than telling them to rewrite in ET. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4