About using rperl

hakonhagland has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: About using rperl by LanX (Sage) on Aug 13, 2019 at 09:41 UTC
I'm not an expert on rperl, but I think the answer to your third question should be obvious. > Then, why not just write an XS-module? XS modules are not easy to write. Being able to write high performance code in "pure" Perl should be an advantage. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice}	[reply]
Re^2: About using rperl by hakonhagland (Scribe) on Aug 13, 2019 at 09:59 UTC
Yes I agree! It would be great to see an example of how to call a `sub` in the shared library from regular Perl code.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: About using rperl by Laurent_R (Canon) on Aug 13, 2019 at 10:26 UTC
It would be great to see an example of how to call a sub in the shared library I haven't seen such example of code, but I attended a talk by Will Braswell a few months ago, and asked whether it is feasible, and Will answered that it is possible. So you could have your CPU intensive nested loops or other computations in a RPerl module, and the rest in a regular Perl program. This looks very interesting to me, because it seems easier to write a RPerl module than an XS module.	[reply]
Re^4: About using rperl by LanX (Sage) on Aug 13, 2019 at 14:42 UTC
Re^5: About using rperl by Laurent_R (Canon) on Aug 14, 2019 at 11:14 UTC
Re^4: About using rperl by Anonymous Monk on Aug 14, 2019 at 02:28 UTC
Re^5: About using rperl by hakonhagland (Scribe) on Aug 14, 2019 at 13:20 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^3: About using rperl by Anonymous Monk on Aug 14, 2019 at 02:07 UTC
Yes I agree! It would be great to see an example of how to call a sub in the shared library from regular Perl code. Regular perl? See Inline::C, Re^19: Using STDIN after exec() with ActiveState Perl...	[reply]
Re: About using rperl by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Aug 13, 2019 at 11:26 UTC
As far as I can tell, RPerl is perl but with every feature which makes perl either useful or "perlish" removed. Dave.	[reply]
Re^2: About using rperl by Laurent_R (Canon) on Aug 14, 2019 at 22:30 UTC
Yeah, I definitely get your point and I mostly agree. And I probably don't want to write a full RPerl application. But if I could write my main program in Perl and have my limited CPU intensive part(s) of the code (e.g. deeply nested loops) in RPerl, maybe I could have the best of two worlds: high speed of compiled programs for the CPU intensive part, and the high expressive power of Perl for the rest of the program.	[reply]
Re^2: About using rperl by Anonymous Monk on Aug 15, 2019 at 04:58 UTC
I once agree with you, but now I don't. you think RPerl is not real perl, just because rperl is not smart enough yet. I don't talk with Will Braswell, But I believe that his target is Rperl will be a compiler for perl which compile all no magic perl code but remain magic perl for perl itself automatically!. That would save a lot of time to manual write C/XS code for performance.	[reply]
Re^3: About using rperl by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Aug 15, 2019 at 06:47 UTC
If RPerl ever starts to be able to seamlessly e.g. mix in regexes, use $1, declare lexical vars without types, become able to use a string var as an integer without an explicit conversion, etc etc, then I will of course revise my opinion of it. Dave.	[reply]
Re: About using rperl by Anonymous Monk on Aug 14, 2019 at 02:31 UTC
If I want fast code, I can write it directly in C++, why would I use RPerl? Why write directly in C++ when you can write directly in perl? rperl writes the c++ for you	[reply]