On Mon, Jul 17, 2006, Chris Dawson wrote: > Well, when the problem domain is XML, I have to admit I tend to look > for the simplest solution. There are so many different XML parsers > and writers, and many have subtle issues with reading/writing XML from > other parsers/writers. So, in this case, I had the XML serialization > already done in perl, and decided that since this will be called once > a month in my ruby application to just "use perl;" I am definitely a > pragmatist more than a purist.
*nod* I'm certainly not advocating purism. It wasn't clear from your original post that you had a non-trivial problem to solve, nor that your code was already written. When I suggested you just do it in Ruby, I was mostly joking... until people started to take me too seriously ;) My whole point is that discounting Ruby by saying that it can't do the things <insert language x> can is a bunch of crap. Not that anyone is saying that in this thread. I just like to try to solve problems in Ruby first if possible. To get back to your problem, though, I think you might find it easier in the long run if you rejigger your perl code to run standalone instead of being called from inside a ruby process. Maybe there are reasons this isn't possible, but in my mind it's almost always better to do maintenance tasks asynchronously. Ben _______________________________________________ PDXRuby mailing list [email protected] IRC: #pdx.rb on irc.freenode.net http://lists.pdxruby.org/mailman/listinfo/pdxruby
