Right -- I figured that from the 'xs' at the end, even though it sounds like Ingy's Inline::C is the preferred method when linking C code into a Perl script/.This is probably subject to another meditation of some sort, but the way I see it, Inline::C is great, I love it, but it's not suited for distributions into environments where there is not a compiler present -- or for Windows environments either. Thus I doubt it can be the preferred method for production code. Unfortunately, I have yet to learn XS, but I get the feeling around here that Inline::C is considered 'training wheels' -- please correct me if I've gotten that wrong. After all, XS modules have to be compiled as well, but perhaps it is easier to distribute them in native form? Are there sufficient performance tradeoffs (not bugs, per se, but performance tradeoffs) when using Inline::C rather than XS after initial compile/build time?
In reply to Re: Re: Re: In praise of h2xs: A tool you gotta have
by flyingmoose
in thread In praise of h2xs: A tool you gotta have
by talexb
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |