Re^2: 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

Yes, but what cavac just said is entirely correct: Windows is a much smaller target to hit, in a way, than Linux and Unix ... which might be deployed on anything from ~~IBM MVS/XA~~ Z/OS to a smartphone. It’s also worth noting that a language compiler is usually not available by default on Windows boxes. The ActiveState Perl (vs. Strawberry) team takes a rather unique approach to their deployments, and of course it is a purposeful part of their chosen strategy that they have done so. (As Strawberry’s approach is an equally purposeful part of theirs.)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: 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 ikegami (Patriarch) on Apr 06, 2011 at 18:56 UTC
Windows is a much smaller target to hit, in a way, than Linux and Unix ... And? You forgot to explain how you think this relates. It’s also worth noting that a language compiler is usually not available by default on Windows boxes. And? Again, you forgot to explain why you think this matters. The ActiveState Perl (vs. Strawberry) team takes a rather unique approach to their deployments, and of course it is a purposeful part of their chosen strategy that they have done so. You forgot to mention what you're talking about. I think you're referring to `ppm` or its installation of MinGW, but you're wrong either way. Neither are unique to ActivePerl. You seem to have rushed your post, posting only premises and hoping we'd be able to guess the arguments you would form from those premises. Please start over.	[reply] [d/l]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.