Re: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl? by Anonymous Monk on Jan 21, 2013 at 20:18 UTC
ActiveState has been unable to support the DB_File module for quite a long time (since 2008 IIRC). DB_File is handy if you need a lightweight high performance way to tie a hash to a database file (Berkeley DB). DB_File works fine in Strawberry Perl right out of the box. This was a big deal for me and prompted me to switch from ActiveState to Strawberry.	[reply]
Re^3: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl? by Anonymous Monk on Jan 22, 2013 at 03:47 UTC
ActiveState has been unable* to support the DB_File module for quite a long time* Supporting DB_File is trivial, ActiveState chooses not to support it	[reply]
Re^4: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl? by Anonymous Monk on Aug 08, 2013 at 11:44 UTC
To all of the concerns, Active State is moving very fast towards business. Many of the important modules that you got initially are no longer available for free, Ex: DBD-MySQL Win32::GUI The stable versions like 5.10 do not provide many of these modules. You need a business edition and it costs $1000. Your very notion of Opensource is compromised.	[reply]
Re^5: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl? by ww (Archbishop) on Aug 08, 2013 at 11:55 UTC