perl.par...RE: Strawberry Perl Re: PAR installation question.... by Robert Davis- June 30, 2008 > And both lack a usable terminal application ;-) (BTW: Is theresomething> for windows)I use cygwin with bash. Works just like unix.I do once and a while have a problem with interactive programs (likecpan). The auto flushing isn&39;t working. If I get 512 bytes it comes outbut for prompts and commands that isn&39;t workable. There probably is somefix but I haven&39;t found it yet. Of course the cpan for perl cygwin worksfine. In a perl program I can set $ on STDOUT but I don&39;t want to..http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.par/2008/06/msg3633.html Re: Strawberry Perl Re: PAR installation question.... by Sisyphus- June 30, 2008 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alvar Freude" <alvara-blast.org>To: <parperl.org>Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 7:30 PMSubject: Strawberry Perl Re: PAR installation question......> So, the question is: where are the pros of ActivePerl beside support> contracts or the ActiveStates Perl Development Kit etc, unless it ships> CPAN ready ;-)I can think of 2 possible "pros":1) As I mentioned earlier, you can use Visual Studio to build modules on ActivePerl -.http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.par/2008/06/msg3632.html Strawberry Perl Re: PAR installation question.... by Alvar Freude- June 30, 2008 Hi,-- Sisyphus <sisyphus1optusnet.com.au> wrote:> IMHO, Strawberry&39;s main "selling" point is that it ships with both the> compiler and make utility. (You don&39;t have to then hunt around and> install them separately.)> Also, it provides some additional and useful C libraries such as expat,> iconv, gmp, xml2 and zlib - which aren&39;t part of MinGW.yes, I think that&39;s the point:Strawberry Perl has everything out of the box. It can be used like Perl...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.par/2008/06/msg3631.html Re: PAR installation question.... by Sisyphus- June 29, 2008 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Packy Anderson" <packydardan.com>..>> Um, well, any module that requires xs, for starters, since ActiveState > doesn&39;t ship with a C compiler. You&39;d need to provide your own, and, > since xs modules need to be compiled with the same compiler used to > compile the perl binary, you&39;ll need to provide MS Visual C++.Yes, this was once true, but no longer is :-)You can use the MinGW compiler and either dmake or nmake to.http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.par/2008/06/msg3630.html Re: PAR installation question.... by Packy Anderson- June 29, 2008 On Jun 29, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Mark Dootson wrote:> Can you name any module that will compile on Strawberry Perl via > the CPAN shell that won&39;t compile on ActivePerl via the CPAN shellUm, well, any module that requires xs, for starters, since ActiveState doesn&39;t ship with a C compiler. You&39;d need to provide your own, and, since xs modules need to be compiled with the same compiler used to compile the perl binary, you&39;ll need to provide MS Visual C++. Apparently,...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.par/2008/06/msg3629.html Re: PAR installation question.... by bob davis- June 29, 2008 Actually to stir up this conversation a little more....I actually like cygwin better.alarm workssignals workchmod works sort of like you expect.fork works betterThe only reason I went to strawberry over cygwin was because par packages it as one exe where with cygwin you need cygwin1.dll etc. Also embedding file version and icon were a plus with strawberry.Mark Dootson wrote:> Hi,>> Can you name any module that will compile on Strawberry Perl via the > CPAN shell that won&39;t...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.par/2008/06/msg3628.html Re: PAR installation question.... by Mark Dootson- June 29, 2008 Hi,Can you name any module that will compile on Strawberry Perl via the CPAN shell that won&39;t compile on ActivePerl via the CPAN shellRegardsMarkPacky Anderson wrote:> > On Jun 29, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Paul Miller wrote:>> Why is everyone so down on Active Perl lately> > > I was just at YAPC::NA two weeks ago, and Adam Kennedy was talking about > the status of Strawberry Perl and how it differs from ActiveState. He > went into great detail about the differences...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.par/2008/06/msg3627.html Re: PAR installation question.... by Packy Anderson- June 29, 2008 On Jun 29, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Paul Miller wrote:> Why is everyone so down on Active Perl latelyI was just at YAPC::NA two weeks ago, and Adam Kennedy was talking about the status of Strawberry Perl and how it differs from ActiveState. He went into great detail about the differences between the two--details I can&39;t recall all of so I can&39;t go into here--but (for me) it boils down to one major thing: CPAN support.There are certain modules in the PPM repository that ActiveState ...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.par/2008/06/msg3626.html Re: PAR installation question.... by Steffen Mueller- June 29, 2008 Hi Mark, hi Paul, hi everybody,Mark Dootson wrote:...> At which point, they look technically equivalent to me so it&39;s down to> questions of your view on licensing and support, which each distribution> addresses in different ways. Whether one or the other is &39;better&39; is> down to individual preferences and circumstance.I can&39;t agree more with both Paul and Mark here. There&39;s no reason atall to pick on ActivePerl. When Strawberry Perl was new, it had thehuge advantage of.http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.par/2008/06/msg3625.html Re: PAR installation question.... by Mark Dootson- June 29, 2008 Hi,I don&39;t think everyone is.I use ActivePerl and can see no benefit for my particular situation in changing.But Strawberry provides a viable alternative on Windows, and choice has to be a good thing.The nice thing about it is that whatever choice you make at the outset, you are not locked in. If you find somewhere down the line that one distribution provides something the other does not and you need it, just switch. I can&39;t off the top of my head think of anything that would prevent you..http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.par/2008/06/msg3624.html |