What I'm trying to get to is - I'm feeling like I'm banging on saying "Just don't use XML::Simple, there are no good reasons to" and I'm after counter examples. Niches where it isn't just plain worse.
You need to ask more noobs
:) new things are scary, only noobs can come up with examples, because they like trying to write {foo}{bar} (but can't debug it)
{foo}{bar} is better documented and more accessible to noobs than the others
twig has too much documentation :D
libxml docs don't teach you xpath or trees/dom or ...perlintro
so they think "xml hash" and go searching .... after half hour of frustration they stumble upon XML::Simple
Its why I try to give libxml examples often ... its 98% copy/paste
Its also why I link threads where libxml/rules/simple/twig solutions are present....
but even with all that compare/contrast, noobs like to inch through xml/hashes while simultaneously trying to learn perlintro
they need handholding
I used to :D
In reply to Re^3: Examples where XML::Simple is the optimal choice?
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Examples where XML::Simple is the optimal choice?
by Preceptor
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |