Wish Setup would accept my Perl

[LDR]

Dave Korn wrote:
> 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? 
Not sure if this has been mentioned before:

The advantages of using AS Perl, as I see it:

* It's easier to package an app for use by others who may or may not
  be using Cygwin, or even Windows. (In fact, that's the major
  reason that I would do any app in Perl-only, anyways. AS perl
  just makes the app span Windows w/o Cygwin.)

* Better debugger.

In fact, I'm in the process of rewriting an app that I had previously
written (evolved!) in Bash, awk, sed ... with some Perl routines.

I am a GNU/Linux/Cygwin lover and user. But, the rest of the world is
not necessarily so.

Lee (Rothstein)