Well, it's not quite a null set. I can write C, and I have some
knowledge of XML. My problem is being able to spare the cycles. I am
using libxml for my own free software project and I would rather spend
my free cycles on that than on the supporting infrastructure.
Welcome to my world circa 2004. <:~)
I may have to change my mind though, as I appear to be at the limits
of
the current stability of libxml. It looks like my choices are
contribute to libxml or rewrite what I have in another language
(none of
the other libraries for ruby are anything like fast enough). Right
now
I'm thinking that my project's long term future might be with a
rewrite
in D.
D is the new hotness and I don't imagine that changing any time soon.
I was bullish about Ruby in '00 - '01, Rubinius is a likely savior for
Ruby, but D's got all the right things to be the next big big language
if its compiler situation gets a bit more transparent (*kicks GCC's
hardline stance for getting gdc incorporated as a base gcc lang*).
1) The reference-counting implementation allowed multiple ruby
references to the same C structures: is this also true of the newer
approach?
As Dan said, this is no more. It's very hard to maintain (though
ideal from a performance perspective) but brutal to program.
I am beginning to think, admittedly with little real evidence and a
high
likelihood of being wrong, that the fundamental stability problem
arises
more because of the fact that we allow the C objects to be shared by
multiple ruby objects than anything else.
The easiest way forward is to copy memory/nodes like it's going out of
style and let the GC pick up the pieces. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
