Here’s the Deal

RapidXML vs pugixml

2 0

8 1

When comparing RapidXML vs pugixml, the Slant community recommends pugixml for most people. In the question“What are the best XML parser/generator libraries for C++?” pugixml is ranked 2nd while RapidXML is ranked 3rd. The most important reason people chose pugixml is:

This allows all characters to be used and read/written in the DOM tree.

Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking

Common Questions

What are the best XML parser/generator libraries for C++?

RapidXML

pugixml

Pros

Pro
Header-only implementation

This allows for a very simple integration process of the parser into your code. Only the .hpp file would need to be included into the library.

Pro
Very fast parsing speed

"... parsing speed is about 50-100x faster than Xerces DOM, 30-60x faster than TinyXml, 3-12x faster than pugxml, and about 5% - 30% faster than pugixml"

Pro
Allows modification of the DOM tree

The DOM tree that is created from the parser is fully modifiable. Nodes and attributes can be added/removed, and their contents changed.

Pro
Full Unicode support

This allows all characters to be used and read/written in the DOM tree.

Pro
XPath support

XPath 1.0 implementation for complex data-driven tree queries. XPath allows for navigation by selecting nodes from the XML.

Ad
Cons

Con
Not W3C compliant

Ignoring DOCTYPE declarations causes RapidXML to not be a W3C compliant parser. Though it can still successfully parse and produce complete trees of all valid XML files.