in reply to About using rperl

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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.
      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.
        Please excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't this imply having two runtime environments for Perl communicating via sub calls?

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
        Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice