[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Sergeant) wrote:
>Except that until Inline is included in core, it won't be a widely used
>way to build performant code, IMHO.
Jarkko offered to put Inline into the core, and Brian actually refused.
The reason is that he's got a different plan - when a module with Inline
is installed and the user doesn't already have Inline, a small stub will
be installed that does the loading. That way, any user back to 5.005
(maybe even 5.004?) can use Inlined modules automatically, but if it
goes in the core it's just 5.8 and up.
>That, and XS really isn't that hard.
But it's way harder than it needs to be. There are too many
housekeeping details that Perl should really have been able to figure
out for itself.
>Like anything, it takes a bit of learning (as did mod_perl when I
>started using it!), and there could do to be a good book on it.
There was someone on p5p, I forget who, who said upon seeing Brian's
recent developments with Inline: "Brian, I hate this! XS was *supposed*
to be hard!"
>I personally don't buy the benefits of Inline.pm yet. The whole "tweak,
>run" thing that Brian advocates isn't sold on me, because that's exactly
>what I do, only it's "tweak, make test"...
I don't think the tweak/run part is the biggest benefit. It's the lack
of all the XS cruft around C code, and the ability to embed C without
having to create a whole new module. I've been using it myself to do
some reverse-engineering of existing C code into Perl, just to make sure
that I've everything right. The test scripts have been amazingly easy
to manage using Inline.
Also, don't forget that Inline supports other languages too, like Java,
Assembler, ... (Assembler!).
------------------- -------------------
Ken Williams Last Bastion of Euclidity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Math Forum
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
