Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • "Likewise, par and pp utterly fall down"

    Care to elaborate? I have successfully packaged applications with over 150k SLOC. There is an active PAR mailing list which helps most requesters who have managed to at least skim the FAQ list. I don't think statements like the one I'm quoting above help much except vent off frustration.

    Also, the topic of your rant is quite inappropriate. ActiveState have done a lot to improve Perl-support on Win32. Their Perl Dev Kit, at least when I bought it, was a valuable resource. perlapp worked like a charm. PDK came with a lot of pretty good documentation. That was for Perl 5.6, though. I haven't touched any recent versions since I don't use Win32 much any more.

    So instead of talking to people who might clear up some confusion or fix real problems, you decided to write an unconstructive rant that helps nobody. It's not going to improve the situation for anybody including yourself!

    As a last nit, the only Perl compiler is part of perl itself. None of what you describe except the (now removed from perl 5.10) Bytecode backend to the perl compiler should be called that.
    • par and pp utterly fall down *when* *using* -f Bytecode on this particular program. The man page for PAR::Filter::Bytecode says it's deprecated, as I already said. As I already said, I neglected to file a bug report with them because it's deprecated. This is not an attack on the Par people; it's merely a statement of fact that par isn't up to the task of bytecode compiling and packaging this particular application. And by calling it deprecated, it isn't even claiming to be up to the task. I might as we