Re^2: Perl Compiler

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Perl Compiler by Joost (Canon) on Jul 07, 2008 at 21:55 UTC
Last time I checked (4 months ago), I had some serious problems installing Par::Packer and (I think) Tk on strawberry. I switched to activeperl where it worked fine after locating the ppms. Most pure perl modules seem to work fine, though. "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply]
Re^3: Perl Compiler by Anonymous Monk on Jul 08, 2008 at 02:40 UTC
Least painful is not the same as polished, and Strawberry perl is far from polished. Strawberry Perl Support A quick word before we continue... Strawberry Perl is a community-driven Open Source project, which means that most of the people directly involved have jobs, families and/or other commitments beyond just Strawberry. ... In situations where you simply MUST have commercial support for operations or policy reasons (you know who you are) Strawberry may not be your best option. While their ActivePerl distribution may not have CPAN support out the box, ActiveState does offers support on commercial terms and can be modified to do most things that Strawberry can, albeit with some effort	[reply]
Re^4: Perl Compiler by jplindstrom (Monsignor) on Jul 08, 2008 at 08:32 UTC
Let me put it like this: if I were to decide on a Windows Perl distro for, let's say a large enterprise, I'd probably choose Strawberry Perl, and I'd play the game well enough to not let non-issues become a factor. /J	[reply]
Re^5: Perl Compiler by Joost (Canon) on Jul 08, 2008 at 19:47 UTC
If it was up to me, and I had the time, and I absolutely had to use windows, I would probably agree. Sadly for this particular project, time (IOW: money) was a serious constraint, and in fact in the end due to some annoying bugs in the windows multimedia framework and to ease development we decided to give up on windows and switched the whole thing to Linux. "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply]