> From: David Golden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Mark Dootson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I must confess, I've not quite got my head around what > makes Strawberry Perl > > more 'UNIX like' so at the moment ActivePerl + MinGW (or a > compiler of your > > choice) seems more or less equivalent to Strawberry Perl to > me. I'm prepared > > to be trampled under the rush to correct this perception though :) > > For one, Strawberry gives you the compiler as part of the > installation. You don't have to go find MinGW, figure out which > packages you need, and so on. It's compiler-enabled right away.
I consider this is a bad feature, that will help lazy programmer in a short run but its better to bother about C compiler carefully and to not have uncontrollable number of MinGW everywhere. Perl is resizeable to be from very small installation to a huge distribution. I don't like perl to be always huge > > Also, when it first came out, ActiveState was not as friendly to MinGW AFAIR all was fine with Activeperl with mingw with 5.6.0 > as it is now. And generally, ActiveState pushes the PPM graphical > installer approach to module installation, whereas Strawberry Perl > pushes the CPAN approach -- to the point of auto configuring it, nonsence. I am happy with CPAN on Activestate's perl throughout all versions I use. BR, Vadim.
