Scott,
both of the reasons were important when we were making the decision. We
wanted to have a small and portable implementation designed for
precisely the stuff we needed and no more. At present, it certainly
seems (to me) a waste of energy to switch to the std library - the basic
code layer seems to work fine and I believe the performance is at least
as good as if the standard classes were used. Or not much worse.
At least two performance tests included Sablot: one by Sebastian Rahtz
(http://users.ox.ac.uk/~rahtz/xsltest/Report.html), the another called
XSLTMark (http://www.datapower.com/XSLTMark/). Rahtz's report is quite
outdated by now - Sablot's results improved a lot. More optimization
work is in progress.
Tom
Hutton,Scott wrote:
> I am curious why Sabltron implements its own String, List, Tree, etc.
> classes as opposed to using the C++ standard library or STL.
>
> Was this done solely for portability reasons, or was there some performance
> issues as well? Other reasons?
>
> If the former, have there been any thoughts about switching over to the C++
> standard library?
>
> If the latter, was any benchmarking done, and if so, what platform was it on
> and what were the results?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your responses.
>
>
> Scott
>
