Re: Examples where XML::Simple is the optimal choice?

Ordinarily, I use either Twig or LibXML ... most often the latter. Twig is good if the file is so gigantic that you need to process it incrementally ... it is very good for that. But LibXML has the advantage of being all-inclusive, and of being based on an industry-standard binary library that everyone else also uses. (The file that you are parsing by means of libxml2 is quite likely to have been built using the same library.)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Examples where XML::Simple is the optimal choice? by Preceptor (Deacon) on Oct 23, 2015 at 14:20 UTC
They're both good. I default to Twig, because I find it a little more accessible for the more straightforward examples. And I did a lot with it, when I couldn't get XML::LibXML installed on my ActivePerl installation. But I don't think there's much in it - the're both eminently solid libraries for most use cases.	[reply]
Re^3: Examples where XML::Simple is the optimal choice? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 23, 2015 at 18:07 UTC
I agree with your endorsement of Twig ... it is very solid and does not flinch under pressure. (It used to be important that it also ran well on small machines ... y’know, back when machines were small.) I like LibXML because of its completeness and underpinnings. And, well, “those are the (only) two tools that I use to do this sort of thing (in Perl).”	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.