Re^10: [JOB] The Perl Foundation seeks Windows Developer

Unfortunately for this idea though, you have to find a way to make it happen.

The reason the grant committee will probably end up getting behind this, is that it will work, today.

You are proposing something without a clear path to the end point. The Strawberry Perl grant is saying "Here's something I want to do, here's how it can be done. I could do it ANYWAY, but we could use some resources to make it happen faster".

Allowing more modules written originally for non-Win32 platforms, or for non-specific platforms to work on Win32 is a good thing. It can be done now, and doesn't require a multi-year, multi-developer effort to entirely re-architect the way Perl works.

Which is why it is happening.

Comment on Re^10: [JOB] The Perl Foundation seeks Windows Developer

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: [JOB] The Perl Foundation seeks Windows Developer by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 06, 2006 at 21:17 UTC
I concur. I wasn't suggesting this as an alternative to your project, just that I believe that the problems that stop many of the modules from building on Win32, run much deeper than either the compiler that is used to build them, or artificially false statistics generated by a broken, down-level, automated build process. I felt that the aims of the project as described are fuzzy and incomplete, and I requested clarification of those aims. The bottom line from my perspective is that if any modules that are successfully transferred to the Win32 platform as a result of your project, are binary compatible with AS builds which a couple of people have said they will be, then everyone is a winner. I still have my reservations as to how many of the incompatibilities your project will resolve. I also have doubts as to the efficacy of hacking solutions to each module individually, rather than attempting to package generic fixes to the underlying problems and feed them back into the core so that future modules pick them up automatically from there. As I said in my first post in this thread, maybe Strawberry is the right way to start, and maybe pointers to how to achieve generic fixes will come from it. Either way, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours, and I am sorry that my attempt to ellicit clarifications have lead to misunderstandings of the 'us & them' variety. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal? "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^11: [JOB] The Perl Foundation seeks Windows Developer
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 06, 2006 at 21:17 UTC

I concur. I wasn't suggesting this as an alternative to your project, just that I believe that the problems that stop many of the modules from building on Win32, run much deeper than either the compiler that is used to build them, or artificially false statistics generated by a broken, down-level, automated build process. I felt that the aims of the project as described are fuzzy and incomplete, and I requested clarification of those aims.

The bottom line from my perspective is that if any modules that are successfully transferred to the Win32 platform as a result of your project, are binary compatible with AS builds which a couple of people have said they will be, then everyone is a winner.

I still have my reservations as to how many of the incompatibilities your project will resolve. I also have doubts as to the efficacy of hacking solutions to each module individually, rather than attempting to package generic fixes to the underlying problems and feed them back into the core so that future modules pick them up automatically from there. As I said in my first post in this thread, maybe Strawberry is the right way to start, and maybe pointers to how to achieve generic fixes will come from it.

Either way, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours, and I am sorry that my attempt to ellicit clarifications have lead to misunderstandings of the 'us & them' variety.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

[reply]