Re: Best perl compiler??

I am ok with installing active state and compiling there as well.

The ActiveState tool will cost some bucks. It doesn't compile to ASM code or C code or anything like that. It can make an executable image for a platform. I haven't done it myself, but the tool can make a Unix image on a Windows platform, etc. (or so I hear). But you are into making an image per platform...and that's a hassle.

I use this to distribute Windows programs for folks who know nothing of Perl and don't have it on their systems. This will not protect your source code although breaking the ActiveState encryption in the latest versions is "non- trivial". The open source "packers" are far easier to "break". Basically, I use PerlApp to deliver a .exe file to folks who don't even know what Perl is. And it works great for that. I don't expect it to protect my source code or run faster (its actually a bit slower). I do it that way because it is a single file that is easy to use.

Comment on Re: Best perl compiler??

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Best perl compiler?? by afoken (Chancellor) on May 27, 2012 at 19:49 UTC
It can make an executable image for a platform. I haven't done it myself, but the tool can make a Unix image on a Windows platform, etc. (or so I hear). A single image for all Unixes? I highly doubt that. Building a single image "just" for all Linuxes out there is at least hard, if not impossible. Just look at the various CPUs Linux can run on, not to mention libc versions, processor optimized code, and so on. Also, ActiveState lists only Windows, Linux, Mac OS X in the free edition, plus Solaris, HP-UX and AIX in the commercial editions. Where are the BSDs? SCO? Minix? All those legacy Unixes? It might be a fun or research project to write a single executable that can run "just" on all CPUs Linux supports. For some people, it might be even more fun to make that executable run on non-Linux systems. But those won't end in a commercial project, simply because the resulting executable has to be ridiculously large to contain binary code for all the different platforms. See also fat binary, FatELF. Note that ELF is just one of many executable formats, FatELF files won't work on systems that can't execute ELF files. Alexander -- Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Best perl compiler??
by afoken (Chancellor) on May 27, 2012 at 19:49 UTC

It can make an executable image for a platform. I haven't done it myself, but the tool can make a Unix image on a Windows platform, etc. (or so I hear).

A single image for all Unixes? I highly doubt that. Building a single image "just" for all Linuxes out there is at least hard, if not impossible. Just look at the various CPUs Linux can run on, not to mention libc versions, processor optimized code, and so on.

Also, ActiveState lists only Windows, Linux, Mac OS X in the free edition, plus Solaris, HP-UX and AIX in the commercial editions. Where are the BSDs? SCO? Minix? All those legacy Unixes?

It might be a fun or research project to write a single executable that can run "just" on all CPUs Linux supports. For some people, it might be even more fun to make that executable run on non-Linux systems. But those won't end in a commercial project, simply because the resulting executable has to be ridiculously large to contain binary code for all the different platforms. See also fat binary, FatELF. Note that ELF is just one of many executable formats, FatELF files won't work on systems that can't execute ELF files.

Alexander

--
Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)

[reply]