On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 10:44:27AM -0300, Jose Fonseca wrote: > So the main con against Embperl is not actually an Embperl issue: Perl > urgently needs an application packaging system like Java already has had > for 17 years. Upload a binary and the app is deployed, that's how simple it > should be in 2012. Nobody deserves to sit there and watch GCC compilation > messages scroll by in this time and age, IMHO. You can afford it as a > single developer, but when using Embperl for tens of deployments that is > simply undoable.
If you don't want to compile software, may I recommend that you use a binary distribution which contains the software you need? Even if Embperl itself isn't in great shape in Debian at the moment, everything else that Embperl needs is in there. The fact that java has it doesn't mean that it makes sense for perl, on technical grounds. The vast majority of perl is pure-perl, not compiled, but the bits that do get compiled get compiled to native code. not an intermediate byte-code. A universal binary distribution format is not, therefore, particularly realistic, which is why I suggest that you look to something like Debian. Cheers, Dominic. -- Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/ PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: embperl-unsubscr...@perl.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: embperl-h...@perl.apache.org
