RE: Wish Setup would accept my Perl

["Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>]

On 07 November 2007 15:32, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> Brian Mathis wrote:

>> I must say with respect that if there are problems porting from
>> Activestate to linux/unix, that's a problem with the programmer who
>> wrote the code, not Perl.
> Not necessarily. If I write code that uses setsid, for example, on Linux
> and then move it to Windows, ActiveState returns "Not implemented on
> this architecture". That's a problem. If, however I use Cygwin's Perl it
> works fine... On the same architecture. Hmmm...

  Oh, if only there were some kind of way of making the linux/unix gnu tools
available on windows, without needing to port them!  Well, maybe just with
recompiling.

  <thinks> It would have to emulate posix path handling and posix fork/exec
semantics, and add all those posix libc functions that win32 doesn't support,
but I'm sure we could implement them, and maybe we could put them all in a dll
or something that would act as an emulation layer.  We could set up a website,
and a mailing list, and invite people to contribute packages, and I'm sure
there would be lots of folks who'd like something like that.

  Now, all we need is to come up with a name for it ...

> No the alternative is Cygwin's Perl on Windows, of course. Oh, and BTW,
> how much $$$ does ActiveState Perl cost? 

  Zero.

> And how much was Cygwin's again?

  Excactly four hundred and ninetyseven thousand, six hundred and seventeen
times as much!  Clealy, ActivePerl is teh bargain!


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....