Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

runrig (3385)


Just another perl hacker somewhere near Disneyland

I have this homenode [] of little consequence on Perl Monks [] that you probably have no interest in whatsoever.

I also have some modules [] on CPAN [] some of which are marginally [] more [] useful [] than others.

Journal of runrig (3385)

Tuesday August 19, 2003
06:44 PM

Right tool => right job

[ #14214 ]
I am currently trying to convince the powers that be to replace thousands of lines of code in a statically-typed language (which mysteriously fails on occasion) with about 40 lines of perl. The language its written in is good for designing a GUI but bad for this job which just needs to run in the background. I am told it would be a more attractive option if we can deliver an exe file, without having to have customers install perl and DBI and DBD::ODBC, so maybe ActiveState is the way to go? Or PAR if it works for this (or would PAR break the ActiveState license in this case even if it did work)?
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Ya know, you can compile Perl on Windows out of the box these days. You can use that instead of ActivePerl if you want to ship a PAR executable.

    If PAR won't do it (which it should) there's always Ye Olde--umm, reliable?--perl2exe [].

    • Ya know, you can compile Perl on Windows out of the box these days.

      That's if you have a compiler for Windows :-) It would be a choice between buying a compiler or buying ActiveState's DevKit (or perl2exe). I'm lazy, so I'm thinking it might be simpler to just go with the ActiveState thing. Perl2Exe Lite is cheaper, though perl2exe Pro is only marginally cheaper.

      • Its the choice between buying a single license for a compiler or paying for an ActivePerl distribution license. Or does that come with the AS DevKit?
        • One would hope that a product that allows you to produce a stand-alone executable (which must be created on a machine with perl installed) would allow you to distribute that executable to a machine where perl is not installed. I've installed the evaluation copy of the PDK, and I don't see anything to the contrary mentioned, though I could be wrong.
          • Welcome to the Wonderful World of Commercial Software.

            Keep your eye on this [].

            • I poked around the site, and found this more relevant agreement [] (This is what I must have agreed to when I installed the software :-). Section 1 is the most applicable. I think as long as I don't allow an end user to do "eval $string" I'm ok. I'm also now leaning more toward this PDK because it includes other goodies, like creating ActiveX libraries that I can call from other sucky languages (and I'm looking forward to coming up with a compelling reason to call perl regexes from the language we use). And ma
  • .. at least they did last time I looked.

    You want to look at the website as they have ways and means of building COM components etc with the SDK and you get (iirc) support.



    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;