> 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
It does relate to Perl IMO. We're in an age where scaling up is no longer the only way forward. I can add 100 Cassandra database machines in Amazon AWS in one click but I can't deploy more Perl-based servers. That tells us Perl needs a Java-like deployment system with easier packaging IMO. > 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, There exist several bytecode binary systems that work - and they work on major websites, I don't know what you mean by "A universal binary distribution format is not, therefore, particularly realistic, " - I guess systems similar to .NET, Java, Scala, Jython and Parrot are unrealistic? Again this is unrelated to Embperl, but it's a consequence of choosing Perl for an app, which is why I mentioned it. > which is why I suggest that you > look to something like Debian. The Linux distro, with all due respect, is absolutely unrelated to anything I said. We completely ignore what is underneath our Perl app. At this moment it's Fedora Core or RedHat I believe, but we pay zero attention to it, it could be FreeBSD or a Mac for what it's worth. In fact my personal mobile development and testing machine is on MacOS. And at this moment I write you from Fedora Core in which the app runs fine. The distro is irrelevant and to answer your suggestion, no there is not a single distro out there with all the modules required by our app. Deployment has been an issue for us for ages, our only solution has been to use Amazon AMI's. If you have suggestions or ideas for easy packaging of Embperl apps with thousands of dependencies, we'd really appreciate it. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Dominic Hargreaves <d...@earth.li> wrote: > 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 > >
