Comments on: Ruby + XML: A Serious Question That Only Sounds Facetious http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/ruby-xml-parsin/ programming, politics, & other religious issues Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:31:40 +0000 hourly 1 By: Peter Schut http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/ruby-xml-parsin/#comment-33346 Peter Schut Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:33:09 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=632#comment-33346 For help with namespaces and libxml-ruby, check out http://thebogles.com/blog/an-hpricot-style-interface-to-libxml/ Cheers, Peter. For help with namespaces and libxml-ruby, check out http://thebogles.com/blog/an-hpricot-style-interface-to-libxml/

Cheers, Peter.

]]> By: Enfranchised Mind » The Status of Ruby’s libxml http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/ruby-xml-parsin/#comment-33315 Enfranchised Mind » The Status of Ruby’s libxml Tue, 27 May 2008 11:39:57 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=632#comment-33315 [...] I was struggling with XML parsing in Ruby, the consensus was to try out libxml. I got on the devel mailing list in preparation for giving it [...] [...] I was struggling with XML parsing in Ruby, the consensus was to try out libxml. I got on the devel mailing list in preparation for giving it [...]

]]> By: Enfranchised Mind » Hpricot Does Namespaces? http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/ruby-xml-parsin/#comment-33270 Enfranchised Mind » Hpricot Does Namespaces? Thu, 22 May 2008 21:25:36 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=632#comment-33270 [...] like I was a bit hasty in my condemnation of Ruby XML parsing: Hpricot apparently handles namespaces okay through the magical .%() syntax. This tip is shared by [...] [...] like I was a bit hasty in my condemnation of Ruby XML parsing: Hpricot apparently handles namespaces okay through the magical .%() syntax. This tip is shared by [...]

]]> By: Marc http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/ruby-xml-parsin/#comment-33215 Marc Tue, 13 May 2008 17:31:52 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=632#comment-33215 @Wheelwright Or how about you stop bothering me with all this typing BS that I don't care about...being that I'm using a type-optional language and all. If your best argument for LINQ's greatness is to change the rules to help it look better, than you're not doing so hot, friend. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that LINQ sucks. I don't think that's the case at all. However, referring to it as light years ahead of anything else is just flat out wrong. That may be true in the .NET world but it's clear you don't even know what else is out there beyond .NET so I don't see how you can make such ridiculous assertion. @Wheelwright

Or how about you stop bothering me with all this typing BS that I don’t care about…being that I’m using a type-optional language and all. If your best argument for LINQ’s greatness is to change the rules to help it look better, than you’re not doing so hot, friend.

I’m not going to sit here and pretend that LINQ sucks. I don’t think that’s the case at all. However, referring to it as light years ahead of anything else is just flat out wrong. That may be true in the .NET world but it’s clear you don’t even know what else is out there beyond .NET so I don’t see how you can make such ridiculous assertion.

]]> By: Wheelwright http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/ruby-xml-parsin/#comment-33214 Wheelwright Tue, 13 May 2008 17:10:37 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=632#comment-33214 @Marc Solve the problem I have just solved in ONE line of code with the output being STRONGLY TYPED IntelliJ aware object (no lame weakly-typed hashtables etc:) and we will talk. @Marc

Solve the problem I have just solved in ONE line of code with the output being STRONGLY TYPED IntelliJ aware object (no lame weakly-typed hashtables etc:) and we will talk.

]]>