comment on

perlcc
Did everybody give up on it?
Is it frequently used and somehow I just missed out.
Are the people who really really need binaries addicted to some not-for-free vendor "solution".

There are a number of threads in the monastery dating 2001 & 2002 on the topic, so I would assume most people have gone through and made decisions regarding perlcc (see Any alternatives to perlcc?? Please,Error compiling perl program with perlcc with DBI,PerlCC -advice on how to,perlcc?).

All the mentioned perlmonk nodes point out that it's best not to compile code and instead use an interpreter; I agree with this point entirely. My question is more about whether perlcc is still supported and what people ended up doing in the past 5-6 years since they wanted to compile their perl code.

I googled PerlCC and doom the second item in the list is the perlmonk node Compiling Perl? (circa 2000). I didn't really expect perlcc and doom to have any correlation; but then again, that's why I'm posting this question.

In reply to What happened to perlcc? by rgiskard

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks