why on earth would you then use a perl that has been built by someone else for the purpose of helping to run an operating system
Does this argument not also apply to any number of other tools on the operating system? Why use the system's bash? Why use the system's libc? I install a distribution specifically so that I don't have to compile all my own software from scratch. I don't think it's off the wall to assume that what's good enough for my distribution's purposes is good enough for mine.
I also think it's normal that an OS's version of some software is not suitable for what I'm doing, especially if what I'm doing is particularly sensitive to performance or particular features. That, however, should be the exception, not the rule. For more mundane work, I expect the OS's tools to be acceptable, not, as in this case, a thousand times slower than necessary.
In reply to Re^2: blaming perl for not using a build policy
by kyle
in thread blaming perl for not using a build policy
by trwww
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |