in reply to Re^2: Perl Scripts on systems without perl environments.
in thread Perl Scripts on systems without perl environments.

Why is installing five libraries ok, but a custom installation of Perl isn't? Perl is nothing more than a binary, and a bunch of libraries - most of them you won't need. In fact, you could create a Perl that statically links in every extension it needs (and don't compile what you don't need). And if you really must, you can get away with delivering just that binary - any (Perl) library code, you just copy-and-paste in your script. Or rather, use a makefile to spit out a single Perl script. Then you need just two files.

OTOH, if all you have is a relative simple script, you could have written it in C in less time than it took for the participants of this thread to write their replies.

Perl --((8:>*
  • Comment on Re^3: Perl Scripts on systems without perl environments.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Perl Scripts on systems without perl environments.
by SkipHuffman (Monk) on Nov 07, 2005 at 17:30 UTC

    Size and support software. Perl requires EMX. EMX requires some other stuff. Installation nightmare.

    I don't speak c. I am a generalist not a programmer. Scripting I know.

    Skip

      Skip, that's just one ugly statement. That's like saying, I don't speak French. I am a person not a linguist. English I know. WTF? Good development practices and techniques are just that - the language is not relevant.

      That being said, being a cargo-culting in a scripting language is much easier than a compiled one

      -derby

        When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. The job is mine. I will do my best to solve it with the tools that I have.

        That being said, the problem is one that Perl is well suited for. Rexx would be as well. The difficulty comes in the environment available.

        By the way, have you looked for a vaguely up to date c compiler for OS/2? They are pretty rare as well.

        Skip