Re: Future of Perl on Win32?

... since they say Perl won't be supported in Longhorn.

Ask them what they mean by that?

To my knowledge, MS don't 'support' Perl now. I know they did put some investment into AS at one time and even contributed some code to the Win32 codebase I think, but I don't think they ever added anything to XP to enable it to "support Perl".

So what will they not be doing that would prevent Perl being ported to Longhorn?

Sound like they don't like/want to learn Perl, which is their perogative, but attributing their reluctance to MS not supporting it doesn't make much sense (to me anyway).

PS. By the way, won't Longhorn be Win64?. And, from the little I've read, won't (most) Win32 apps (including Perl) run perfectly well in a w32onw64 WOW box?

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.

Comment on Re: Future of Perl on Win32?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Future of Perl on Win32? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 26, 2006 at 16:46 UTC
<disclaimer>I don't have any idea what I'm talking about. Probably this is completely incorrect.</disclaimer> I wonder if it could have something to do with code signing/DRM as a way of fighting trojans/spam/copyright infringment.	[reply]
Re^3: Future of Perl on Win32? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 26, 2006 at 18:13 UTC
If any code signing mechanism that MS implement either Only allows code signed off by MS to run. Doesn't allow retro-active signing of existing code by existing code authors/owners/licence holders. Doesn't permit machine owners to decide what code they can allow to run on their machines. the software containing that mechanism will be deservedly still born. As somebody else pointed out, whatever you think of MS, they aren't totally stupid. 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]
Re^4: Future of Perl on Win32? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 26, 2006 at 19:15 UTC
If any code signing mechanism that MS implement either snip 3. Doesn't permit machine owners to decide what code they can allow to run on their machines. the software containing that mechanism will be deservedly still born I'm not convinced of that; all it takes is marketing to create consumer acceptance, and Microsoft is a world leader in marketing. Consider the average game console: they manufactuerer has certainly tried very hard to prevent anyone from running "unauthorized" software on those systems, and to a large degree, they've been successful. The only reasons why the same sort of approach wouldn't work for a computer branded as a "workstation" rather than a "game console" are social rather than technical. If people can accept that game consoles only take software written by the manufactuer, they can probably be made to accept a similar idea for PCs as well. Remember, Microsoft didn't make a fortune by being great at technology. They made a fortune, in part, by being great at marketing (and lots of other shady business practices, including antitrust violations). They've always been very good at manipulating social perceptions; their marketing for Windows 95 was so good that people who didn't even have computers were calling up the helplines asking how to use this great new product they'ld just purchased. I'm not saying that Microsoft could pull it off; but if anyone can, it's them. Those guys could sell MS-Sand in the middle of a desert, and people would be lining up for miles around to buy it. -- Ytrew	[reply]
Re^5: Future of Perl on Win32? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 26, 2006 at 20:01 UTC
Re^6: Future of Perl on Win32? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 26, 2006 at 23:06 UTC
Re^6: Future of Perl on Win32? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 27, 2006 at 16:54 UTC
Re^6: Future of Perl on Win32? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 27, 2006 at 14:59 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^5: Future of Perl on Win32? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Apr 26, 2006 at 21:27 UTC
Re^3: Future of Perl on Win32? by spiritway (Vicar) on Apr 27, 2006 at 02:49 UTC
I don't know if any of that is true, either. But I'll say that Microsoft works for Microsoft, period. It does what's good for Microsoft, not what's good for its users, developers, or anyone else (as do most other big corporations - I'm not singling MS out for special treatment). So MS will do whatever it perceives to be in its best interests. If it thought it could keep the OS on the Internet, and force everyone to connect before being able to do anything (which, in fact, appears to be where it's trying to go), it will do it. The upside of this is that, if enough people speak up, Microsoft can be influenced in its decisions as to what's best for it. If people let them know that they'll either not upgrade, or migrate to another platform, MS will do what it can to make those people just happy enough to stick with them.	[reply]