←back to thread

277 points jwilk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.41s | source
Show context
Aurornis ◴[] No.44382254[source]
I empathize with some of the frustrations, but I'm puzzled by the attempts to paint the library as low-quality and not suitable for production use:

> The viewpoint expressed by Wellnhofer's is understandable, though one might argue about the assertion that libxml2 was not of sufficient quality for mainstream use. It was certainly promoted on the project web site as a capable and portable toolkit for the purpose of parsing XML. Open-source proponents spent much of the late 1990s and early 2000s trying to entice companies to trust the quality of projects like libxml2, so it is hard to blame those companies now for believing it was suitable for mainstream use at the time.

I think it's very obvious that the maintainer is sick of this project on every level, but the efforts to trash talk its quality and the contributions of all previous developers doesn't sit right with me.

This is yet another case where I fully endorse a maintainer's right to reject requests and even step away from their project, but in my opinion it would have been better to just make an announcement about stepping away than to go down the path of trash talking the project on the way out.

replies(4): >>44382478 #>>44382501 #>>44383478 #>>44385063 #
1. zetafunction ◴[] No.44383478[source]
A large part of the problem is the legacy burden of libxml2 and libxslt. A lot of the implementation details are exposed in headers, and that makes it hard to write improvements/fixes that don't break ABI compatibility.