Re^2: Pure Perl Modules, XS Modules, what's the current trends?

In particular, a module which implements a binding to some C library, would have to re-implement the entire functionality of that library in Perl...

... or if I could get P5NCI stable and completer, it could just use that instead of XS.

Comment on Re^2: Pure Perl Modules, XS Modules, what's the current trends?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Pure Perl Modules, XS Modules, what's the current trends? by almut (Canon) on Dec 20, 2007 at 22:54 UTC
... but would you want to call it "pure Perl" in that case? I mean, from an installation point of view, you'd still have to make sure the respective prerequisite shared object file(s) will be installed on the target system... But irrespective of that, a stable `P5NCI` would be a very nice thing to have :)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Pure Perl Modules, XS Modules, what's the current trends? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Dec 20, 2007 at 23:08 UTC
In theory, with a working and stable P5NCI installed, any module which uses it can be pure Perl, so there's no compiler necessary to install them.	[reply]
Re^5: Pure Perl Modules, XS Modules, what's the current trends? by HeatSeekerCannibal (Beadle) on Dec 21, 2007 at 17:35 UTC
uuuhhhh...mama (salivating). Sounds terrific. But to compĺete the picture, all the good people who has kindly contributed modules that use XS would have to rewrite them to a pure-perl implementation, is my understanding correct? I did a small XS test once....looong time ago. Maybe it would ease my problems if I were to revisit that. Heatseeker Cannibal	[reply]
Re^6: Pure Perl Modules, XS Modules, what's the current trends? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Dec 21, 2007 at 19:09 UTC