From: Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
Date: 2009-09-25T16:06:45+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:25763] Re: syck maintenance?


On Sep 24, 2009, at 22:30 , Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

> Hi,
>
> At Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:38:27 +0900,
> Marc-Andre Lafortune wrote in [ruby-core:25758]:
>> There are about 15 open issues relating to yaml/syck.
>>
>> I hope this, as well as the larger problem of unmaintained / badly
>> maintained libraries can be addressed sooner than later:
>> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/wiki/ruby/Unmaintained
>
> Any alternative of syck?  Or just remove it?

Not really. YAML is important and syck is (afaik) the best library for  
the job, AT THIS TIME. I think that could change, but not without  
effort.

There are pure ruby variants (rubinius has/had one, I think jruby did  
too). FFI has probably supplanted the pure ruby versions by now. zaml  
was just for one direction and was much faster (and quite possibly the  
ugliest ruby I've ever read. Obvious pythoners).

I think for short-to-medium term we can find a volunteer that'll  
maintain libsyck and we should do a better job of updating on our  
side. For long term pure ruby is probably a better way to go, but I  
haven't seen one I liked yet.

My opinion could be a bit out of date. It has been a little while  
since I've looked at this problem.