Hello Paul, Thanks for your reply. With your recommendation I went to read up on UPX. Sounds interesting! It keep mentioning TinyPerl though. But I need to work on ActivePerl as the base. Will it still work?
My intention to offload the core modules from the .exe is because I envisage the host machine installing more than perl-written program. So if there are three such programs in the host, will it not be more efficient to extract out the cores as a separate install? Please note that the above is not an opinion, but rather a question seeking clarification. Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Malcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Foo Ji-Haw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 11:19 PM Subject: Re: packaging a small faster .exe > Foo Ji-Haw wrote: > > > I'm now playing with wxPerl (it's amazing stuff!), and I want to send > > the exe up to the sales guys for demo. however the .exe file generated > > from pp is very huge (4MB for a VERY simple app), and it takes a > > fairly long time to view the first window. > > > > I'm wondering if there is a way to offload the interpreter+core > > libraries from the final .exe. The interpreter+core modules can be > > installed as a base library (similar to vb6.dll). This should make the > > file 'look' smaller, but run significantly faster (i hope!). > > I suggest using upx on the final executable that should shrink it > considerably. As for making it faster or offloading the the core+modules > into a vb6.dll like thing.The purpose of PP is to bundle it all. If you > don't bundle it like that it wouldn't make much of a standalone exec and > the end user would need Perl installed. Even if the execution speed will > remain the same. > > > _______________________________________________ ActivePerl mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
