Re: Forking Perl5 with Microperl?

microperl is basically still Perl5, except without the system specific configuration and likely without dynamic extensions (XS). See README.micro as included with the Perl tarball.

I'm not sure what modifications on the language level are worth to be made to microperl that wouldn't be the same if made to Perl5, as they share the same source code.

If you're looking to cut features from Perl (5), for example cutting away tie (thus giving up support for DBI), you can do that with perl in the same manner as with microperl, and it's likely just the same files that you modify. I think that microperl, or at least miniperl are (much) faster to build, so if you're modifying Perl internals, at least during the development stage, building one of the smaller Perls reduces your waiting cycle.

Comment on Re: Forking Perl5 with Microperl? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Forking Perl5 with Microperl? by rje (Deacon) on Oct 21, 2014 at 18:15 UTC
AH. Well, if that's true, then my understanding was deeply faulted, and the content of my post is therefore ridiculous. I've just been trying to wrap my head around writing a simple Turing machine with Lambda calculus that does the kind of thing that XS was written for (e.g. using native-compiled modules), all for the purpose of bootstrapping a Perl5-ish grammar which trades compatibility in favor of something a bit more ... well, I don't know, I guess portable the "new" way (e.g. LLVM?) as opposed to portable in the "C" way.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Forking Perl5 with Microperl?
by rje (Deacon) on Oct 21, 2014 at 18:15 UTC

AH. Well, if that's true, then my understanding was deeply faulted, and the content of my post is therefore ridiculous.

I've just been trying to wrap my head around writing a simple Turing machine with Lambda calculus that does the *kind* of thing that XS was written for (e.g. using native-compiled modules), all for the purpose of bootstrapping a Perl5-ish grammar which trades compatibility in favor of something a bit more ... well, I don't know, I guess portable the "new" way (e.g. LLVM?) as opposed to portable in the "C" way.

[reply]