Re: The CPAN Morass
Linux isn't the only widely supported unix. FrreBSD , NetBSD have their adherents. Solaris is pretty widely used just not among consumers / desktops. Then you have Mac OS X which isn't exactly unix but is unix-like in many aspects (has a bash shell, you can use vi or emacs and of course perl). I would suspect more Mac desktops than Linux. Servers on Mac exist but relatively rare. Finally, Perl runs on Windows. There are a number of Windows-specific Perl modules. Dana Hudes
Re: The CPAN Morass
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 10:21:32PM -0800, Linda W wrote: Dana Hudes wrote: BTW not everyone uses gcc. What compiler on linux -- where perl was born, would you suggest? Other compilers are available for Linux. I leave finding them as an exercise for you. You will no doubt find it to be a helpful exercise, as your research skills are clearly lacking and you need the practice. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive All children should be aptitude-tested at an early age and, if their main or only aptitude is for marketing, drowned.
Re: The CPAN Morass
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 01:27:08PM +, Dana Hudes wrote: Finally, Perl runs on Windows. There are a number of Windows-specific Perl modules. And don't forget that there are at least three different Windows environments these days! Win32, Cygwin, and Interix (what used to be Services For Unix). -- David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat There's no problem so complex that it can't be solved by killing everyone even remotely associated with it
Re: The CPAN Morass
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 09:42:30AM -0800, Linda W wrote: David Cantrell joked: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 10:21:32PM -0800, Linda W wrote: [[ What compiler on unix-- where perl was born liar liar pants on fire That's not what you wrote. Nor is it what I quoted. Or would you like to get serious? In the sense that I have no interest in playing stupid games with a liar, and have run out of the patience to decode your barely-coherent ramblings, yes, I would far prefer to have a serious discussion. -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity -- Hanlon's Razor Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice -- Richard Bos's corollary
Re: The CPAN Morass
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 09:42:30AM -0800, Linda W wrote: The assertion was that such a thing does not. It is is incumbent upon you, who want to refute that assertion to provide at least 1 example to disprove the general assertion. Claiming it is a research opportunity (because you don't know of any), is what i would expect of the average person cannot refute my stated position. Is that your final answer? ;-) Or would you like to get serious? Intel's icc is available for Linux (for x86 and x86_64, I assume) Sun's compiler is available for Linux (just for x86 and x86_64, I think) I've used lcc on Linux I've not tried clang on Linux That's 4 without trying, all of which I believe can be used in some cases without payment. Nicholas Clark
Re: The CPAN Morass
What, no mention of LLVM/Clang? :-( I have been meaning to try that myself. I have also had great success using TCC (Tiny C Compiler) in the past, which does x86 compilation. Cheers, Jonathan On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Nicholas Clark n...@ccl4.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 09:42:30AM -0800, Linda W wrote: The assertion was that such a thing does not. It is is incumbent upon you, who want to refute that assertion to provide at least 1 example to disprove the general assertion. Claiming it is a research opportunity (because you don't know of any), is what i would expect of the average person cannot refute my stated position. Is that your final answer? ;-) Or would you like to get serious? Intel's icc is available for Linux (for x86 and x86_64, I assume) Sun's compiler is available for Linux (just for x86 and x86_64, I think) I've used lcc on Linux I've not tried clang on Linux That's 4 without trying, all of which I believe can be used in some cases without payment. Nicholas Clark
Re: The CPAN Morass
On Dec 5, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 09:42:30AM -0800, Linda W wrote: The assertion was that such a thing does not. It is is incumbent upon you, who want to refute that assertion to provide at least 1 example to disprove the general assertion. Claiming it is a research opportunity (because you don't know of any), is what i would expect of the average person cannot refute my stated position. Is that your final answer? ;-) Or would you like to get serious? Intel's icc is available for Linux (for x86 and x86_64, I assume) Sun's compiler is available for Linux (just for x86 and x86_64, I think) I've used lcc on Linux I've not tried clang on Linux That's 4 without trying, all of which I believe can be used in some cases without payment. Nicholas Clark Let's hope that will put this to rest (though something makes me think not ;-) chris
Re: The CPAN Morass
Nicholas Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 09:42:30AM -0800, Linda W wrote: The assertion was that such a thing does not. It is is incumbent upon you, who want to refute that assertion to provide at least 1 example to disprove the general assertion. Claiming it is a research opportunity (because you don't know of any), is what i would expect of the average person cannot refute my stated position. Is that your final answer? ;-) Or would you like to get serious? Intel's icc is available for Linux (for x86 and x86_64, I assume) Sun's compiler is available for Linux (just for x86 and x86_64, I think) I've used lcc on Linux I've not tried clang on Linux That's 4 without trying, all of which I believe can be used in some cases without payment. Nicholas Clark --- I have tried to get a hold of icc, you had to be a famous developer or pay money -- I wanted to try it because it was said to do a much better job of optimizing than the gnu compiler... Somehow I don't know that your experience in getting free use of compilers is typical, I wasn't aware Sun's compiler was available, unencumbered from sun and haven't heard of lcc/clang will have to investigate them. did say: I didn't ask for an exhaustive list -- even one compiler that produces as good as [code] and supports 32/64 bit linux and windows... Do any besides gnu have 64-bit supp0rt on Windows?
Re: The CPAN Morass
David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 09:42:30AM -0800, Linda W wrote: David Cantrell joked: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 10:21:32PM -0800, Linda W wrote: [[ What compiler on unix-- where perl was born liar liar pants on fire That's not what you wrote. Nor is it what I quoted. The use of brackets is a commonly used for editorial insertions or corrections. If you wanna play games and continue to quote something I already admitted to remembering as true, feel free, to continue to quote something I have said was wrong. As for lying:... In the sense that I have no interest in playing stupid games with a liar, and have run out of the patience to decode your barely-coherent ramblings, yes, I would far prefer to have a serious discussion. === Lying indicates intent to deceive. As i had already corrected this, and you continue to repeat it, who is attempting deceit? Or did you really not see my response to N.Clark?
Solaris Studio (was Re: The CPAN Morass)
To download stuff from Oracle you have to register with them (free) and agree to their license terms. Download Solaris Studio from http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solarisstudio/downloads/index-jsp-141149.html This is not just C/C++ it is also a Java compiler and Netbeans and IIRC Fortran and Objective C. I don't recall Ada support. It absolutely supports 64 bit x86. See their site for specific details, compiler options etc. Developer support is list price $1200 per named user. http://www.oracle.com/us/support/development-tools-080025.html Educational and government get a 20% discount. You only need support if you want to ask questions and get patches. To use the base release product and see the documentation is free.
Re: The CPAN Morass
Started this, this morning before any of 'today's emails...just never finished it.. Seems pertinent with the talk of alternate packages that only work with alternate compilers -- especially those that are limited in the platforms they support (Gnu is on Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris, Irix, et all...)... Dana Hudes wrote: Solaris Perl is compiled using the Sun C compiler since at least Solaris 8. Once known as Forte now Solaris Studio. IDK what Perl on Moc OS X is compiled with but suspect not gcc. A LOT of people write Perl on Mac. Could you defined 'LOT' in terms of % of perl market?If modules written ON the MAC will be generally useful to MOST PERL programmers, then - main index. Else if only useful to Mac perl users, - Mac:: world. BTW -- equally comfortable with them taking a name like Dirlister::Mac -- if they want to provide a top level Dirlister for their functions, that's acceptable, only if they acknowledge that 'Dirlister doesn't belong to the Mac, and the top level interface is subject to _change_ based on design _needs_ ( if it wasn't created to be sufficiently general in the same calls for other platforms) AND be open to having new functions ADDED for support of new functions/features in the module that might be pertinent on other platforms. Examples: Good examples: File::Path, Path::Class -- both are platform agnostic.. File:Path, *explicitly*, has platform specific submodules for various OS types: Unix Mac, OS2, Win32, VMS. Bad example: Path::Abstract -- is unix specific. should be Path::Abstract::Unix, in fact says: Path::Abstract is a tool for parsing, interrogating, and modifying a UNIX-style path. The parsing behavior is similar to File::Spec::Unix http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?File%3A%3ASpec%3A%3AUnix, except that trailing slashes are preserved (converted into a single slash). So the author took a Unix function, duplicated it and called it by a general name, Path::Abstract...how thoughtful is that? If the top level interface supports the ability to make it generic, then if someone wants to add another platform: Path::Abstract becomes shared. and that author gets Path::Abstract::Unix. Later on, if their Path::Abstract::Unix isn't general for Unix, but only runs on say, a System-V derivative, (Solaris, Irix, linux) and someone comes along with a version that supports BSD derivatives (SunOS, MacOS), similarly, they need to be willing to move their original code into Path::Abstract::Unix::SysV[/BSD]. and have a top level Unix that calls their code or 'the other code'... If things are done 'right' at the design phase, the above should be a no-brainer -- ($ostype =~ /Aix|Bix|Cix/) and goto __PACKAGE__::SysV; . etc... AT this point, it should be obvious to anyone, that things like the above can't be monitored from the top down -- in fact, if no one wants to use Pth:Abs on another platform, nothing would need to change, Only if 'room needs to be made'... Note, this SAME problem used to be a problem with just supporting multiple VERSIONS of the same modules! (ex. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-apreq-dev/200406.mbox/87n02u6o1x@gemini.sunstarsys.com ) http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-apreq-dev/200406.mbox/87n02u6o1x@gemini.sunstarsys.com (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-apreq-dev/200406.mbox/%3c87n02u6o1x@gemini.sunstarsys.com%3E) Not everyone runs Linux. It is completely legitimate to have CPAN modules which were not even tested on Linux. 100% agree! You may not find their code of interest but to decide it is of no value if it doesn't run on Linux is not terribly clueful. Yup... I'm bi-platform @ home, Windows frontend, and linux backend... I've used SunOS/Solaris/Irix, and worked at Sun/Sgi)... ... I point to the IMHO nice useful Solaris namespace modules on CPAN. Ding Ding Ding... give the solaris folks a prize...(not being sarcastic!)... see below)... Having modules that are platform specific, should be either 1. ***minimally***, clearly labeled in descriptions, AND, CPAN should allow me to exclude modules that won't run on on the platform's i select. Having a module that only runs on DEC's Tops-10, doesn't do many people very much good. I question it's usefulness in being listed in a general directory of modules. 2. Unless it runs on at least 1 or more dominant platform where perl runs, it shouldn't be listed without an OS/ARCH suffix. If it is a generic unix OS type function, it should at least run on linux or some free BSD version. If something was 'Cygwin' only, should be labeled such. Or if such is Win32 only should be labeled such (aren't most?) It seems like most of the Win modules have gone the right direction. How surprising, that Windows developers might be clear about what platform their module is designed for. Are developers for
