claird at lairds.com
Sat Mar 29 13:54:07 CET 2003
In article <pan.2003.03.28.20.18.26.483935 at jerf.org>,
Jeremy Bowers <jerf at jerf.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:30:28 +0100, Just wrote:
>> """The Python people also piped to say "everything's just
>> fine here" but then they always do, I really must learn that
>Would somebody amplify on this please? What XML library do we have that's
>easier to use then DOM or SAX for real world tasks that doesn't require
>reading the whole file into memory to work?
I have hopes that Mr. Bray himself will speak up. In the
meantime, I'll rather gratuitously speculate:
Mr. Bray works most often, from what I understand, in Java
and Perl. While we old hands are conditioned to recognize
that most languages are mostly the same, and that practical
differences in applicability often center on the contingencies
of what libraries make available, I think this is an excep-
tional case. I don't find Python's XML modules paragons of
lucidity or functionality or elegance; I think they're pro-
bably still a cut below those Java and Perl have. HOWEVER,
coding up XML applications in Java and Perl appears
consistently to involved frustration and occasional ugliness.
Python XML work seems to move forward with less drama.
Python syntax and semantics seem to have just the right
balance between flexibility and structure to escape the
hair-pulling use of other languages inspires.
I'd like to provide an example that contrasts usages in the
different languages. I think I can do so, but I'm not will-
ing now to invest the time it would take. Maybe later ...
I summarize: it's not that Python boasts a non-memory-based
API that dominates DOM; coding conventional DOM and SAX just
feels better with Python.
Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
More information about the Python-list