So, finally the question: why does Perl need to go through all this extra rigmarole of testing and compiling any library C/C++ code?
Because most Open Source projects (and quite a lot closed source ones as well) like to change API's seemingly just because they can (the typical "f.ck backward compatibility..." issue).
Also, the user might use a different compiler, may want to link against a patched/alternative library, or may want to use an operating system not supported by the binary build.
I also like to comment on this: It's far easier (read: takes much less time and effort) to provide binary packages for Windows (only have to do a x86 and x64 build) than it is for the many different Linux distributions on multiple hardware architectures. And there's also the BSD systems, commercial Unix systems, OSX and whatnot. Most of them releasing a new version once or twice a year. Personally, i'd rather have module authors (like myself) write better modules and some selftests for when things go wrong than have them spend all their time struggling with different operating systems - if there are problems, in many cases the automated tests can report back to the author via tools like cpantesters.org.
In reply to Re: Why is it in some other popular languages fewer steps and potential issues when installing libraries no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done
by cavac
in thread Why are other popular languages very different from Perl when installing libraries, e.g. no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done
by hermida
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |