X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Andrew DeFaria <Andrew AT DeFaria DOT com>
Subject:  Re: Wish Setup would accept my Perl
Date:  Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:44:44 -0700
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <fgsmhd$l1h$1@ger.gmane.org>
References:  <loom DOT 20071105T183528-568 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> 	 <fgq3au$q89$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> 	 <183c528b0711060821u278c0775of56ba7e004aaf180 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> 	 <001501c82094$434e4230$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <31b7d2790711060907rf21e581j742ff91897a65cc2 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
In-Reply-To: <31b7d2790711060907rf21e581j742ff91897a65cc2@mail.gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
> I once, like you, wondered why I couldn't just have one installation 
> of Perl or Python that works in either environment. Since I write 
> scripts, not code,
An aside? How is a Perl script not Perl code?!? Just wondering...
> I assumed it was because it was just too hard to do and began to use 
> each program in its appropriate place.
Hmmm... I'm curious. As you said you have both AS Perl and Cygwin's 
Perl. Now you say use each one where it is appropriate. I can't think of 
a reason why using one or the other is more appropriate than the other.  
As you state below regarding PPM, AS Perl is obviously Windows centric 
and Cygwin's Perl is admittedly Posix centric. Being as I don't see many 
Unix/Linux Perls with a Window's centric viewpoint I would think that 
sticking with Posix through and through (including CPAN rather than the 
uniquely AS PPM) would provide the best shot at being the most portable 
out of the gate!

Granted the programmer also need be concerned about what he's about to 
do and whether or not that will be portable to "the other side". All too 
often the lazy programmer cops out and says "Well this'll never be run 
on Unix/Linux anyway. It's not a requirement", etc. and wham you have 
platform dependent code being made. Indeed search for a Unix/Linux Perl 
that will provide a Win32 backend or other Windows only concepts. You 
probably will not find one.

However if the programmer bears in mind portability from the start then 
the chances are high that the code will port with little effort. IOW the 
real common denominator here is Posix, NOT Win32! And I have had many 
years of direct experience that tells me that this indeed is the case.
> PS - I use PPM to manage perl modules for ActiveState Perl and cpan to 
> manage modules for cygwin perl. PPM is super-Windows-centric.
-- 
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
Windows: Just another pane in the glass.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/