On 2/11/2012 8:41 PM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
On 2/11/2012 10:06 PM, BGB wrote:
On 2/11/2012 12:52 PM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
On 2/10/2012 12:43 PM, BGB wrote:
On 2/10/2012 9:51 AM, Lew wrote:
BGB wrote:
if one is using C, then it is either "write some code to do it", or
suffer with a 3rd party [sic] library dependency (one might validly
choose to
write the code themselves in this case).
"Suffer"? The XML parsers for C are well-established, very reliable,
and no
cause for suffering. Using a pejorative is not the same as
establishing a
point.
There is nothing wrong with the third-party libraries, and the
choice to
roll your own for C is rarely valid. You seem to suffer from NIH
syndrome.
they introduce porting hassles:
does one bundle "libxml" with their app on Windows;
do they use MSXML and then deal with having to switch over to "libxml"
when building on Linux?
LIBXML2 works fine on Windows, so you can use it on both platforms.
yeah, it is an option.
however, it is not a standard library on Windows (in certain cases, one
may need to provide for it, or expect anyone who wants to build from
source to provide for it, ...).
C is not standard on Windows either.
You need to get some things.
probably, but it is a question of how many things have to be worried
about as a part of getting it built (for someone wanting to rebuild from
source). if a program depends on a big pile of 3rd party libraries, it
may be harder to get rebuilt than if it doesn't.
it is arguably bad enough requiring that a particular C compiler be
installed (such as MSVC / Windows SDK), and that the program has to be
built in a certain way.
expecting the person to go download a bunch of libraries, get them
built, and put them all in the library and include paths, well, this is
adding a bit more to the cost.