The version of MacPerl lagged behind the current release of Perl - I was constantly porting stuff and finding out that modules like HTML::Table wouldn't work because it required capabilities not in the MacPerl release. To someone who was not constantly trying to develop Solaris and Mac Apps in parallel might not have been so frustrated. As soon as MacOS X 10 was released, I went to using the unix version because of this frustration - but I really missed the Mac "goodies", especially when developing for Mac end users, most of whom are graphics artists in my shop, and not at all interested in the Terminal app, and aren't interested in anything but "Macish" apps.
My Unix users are engineers and GIS professionals and are much more comfortable with the command line. > ---------- > From: Chris Nandor > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 4:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MacPerl Capabilities on OS X (was Please Don't) > > In article > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In the interest of stopping what looks to be a potential flame war: > > I don't think there's any flamewar brewing. Perhaps I was a bit too > curt -- it was a long week -- but I just wanted to emphasize that > MacPerl is a first-class Perl implementation on a viable platform. In > fact, it is easier, IMO, to build perl 5.6.1[*] on Mac OS than it is on > Mac OS X. :-) > > MacPerl is not dead yet, and neither is Mac OS. For those who prefer > Mac OS X, that's great, but I don't want anyone who might want to use > Mac OS and MacPerl to think that MacPerl is not still going to be around > or that it is merely a "stopgap". If you want to use it, it will be > here, and it will work well, and don't let anyone tell you anything > different. That's my message. :-) > > [ObPlug: MacPerl 5.6.1b3 is out, and b4 is going to be ready within a > week or three, as hopefully the final beta before the release.] > > > > As a long-time Unix (Solaris) SysAdmin and a Macintosh Bigot, I > developed > > apps in both the *nix Perl and MacPerl. I really liked many of the > > capabilities of MacPerl (the open box, the droplets, the syntax checking > > from the editor) I also missed the fact that the Perl 5 capabilites > were > > missing and that modules that required C compiles were not easy to > > implement. > > I don't know what you mean by "the Perl 5 capabilities were missing." > Maybe you were using MacPerl 4.x? MacPerl 5 has been out for many years > now. > > But yes, XS modules have always been difficult, though the most popular > ones have been readily available for a few years now, as has a tutorial > on how to build them yourself using freely available tools. Still, a > high bar for most people, but that can't be helped. :) > > > > I have long wished that the best of both worlds were available, > > and I hope that someone or some group can make it happen. We should > have an > > "plain vanilla" perl implementation for the command line, and we should > have > > extensions that would include an IDE and the ability to make simple > > clickable apps and droplets. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are suggesting that an > IDE and the ability to make droplets etc. are somehow different from a > '"plain vanilla" perl implementation.' I don't know what that means. > An IDE and droplet can simply communicate with the "command line" perl. > They don't need to be separate things. > > [*] Well, the latest maint-5.6 source from the perl repository, which is > more like perl 5.6.1 + patches. > > -- > Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/ > Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/ > >
