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 resourc
    • 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 well have said that Pop Rocks are bad at fixing flats, and your rush to the defense of par would be about as appropriate as a Pop Rocks fan rushing to the defense of its application for fixing flats. It seems that you missed my point.

      Another reader pointed out that simply pp'ing it without a filter should be adequate, and he's probably right. I'll have to try that angle -- which will involve endless hanging with a government organization, explaining to them in great detail exactly what it is. Being able to say "compiled, just like Java!" to explain Bytecode is a lot easier to sell.

      ActiveState sucks in so much as their documentation is unfindable and they can't be contacted to report the various problems. It's comical to think that if an organization does a lot of work for a segment of the Perl community (while profiting), it's reprehensible to criticize their lack of documentation. Or did you miss my point on that one?

      "I don't think statements like the one I'm quoting above help much except vent off frustration." Yes, that was exactly the point of that post. I'm sorry you missed that point.

      As far as talking to "someone who might clear up confusion", I thought I explained exactly what steps I took to contact ActiveState and failed. I'm sorry I didn't make that point more clear so that you wouldn't miss it.

      I understand that ActiveState and IndigoSTAR started with Malcolm's work originally. This bit of trivia should not be used to construe an attack on him, nor to introduce forgiveness to people who would resell his work.

      Look, here's the short version, hopefully in a form you can understand:

      Compiling Perl is hard. No one of any authority has said otherwise. Because it's hard, and no one has been able to (for lack of resources) make it work well, it's being deprecated in various places. Third party vendors are still trying just because of commercial demand (mostly from people with far less of an excuse than I have), but that doesn't change the fact that's a dubious proposition. The PAR mailing list can't change that. ActiveState can't. IndigoSTAR can't.

      As far as asking the right people to help, one of the core dumpers in 5.8.8 was reported to the Perl 5 Porters, who helpfully pointed me at a patch in the 5.8 branch. B::Generate is still triggering a few others, but I need to investigate more before filing reports.

      You could read my post as a horror story of pain and tribulations of trying to bytecode compile Perl, or you might even find it humorous. Or you could rush to defend every name mentioned in it. You apparently missed every point I made in the original article, so I have no idea what I hope to accomplish by feeding you more prose for you to misunderstand. I guess I just don't want to let the record left to appear as though you had any point. Towards that effort, please don't post in my blog anymore.

      -scott