Re: More from me - perl this time
- From: Sam Holden <sholden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wilyfans@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:32:19 +1000
Beirne Konarski writes:
>On Tuesday 27 July 2004 07:42 am, you wrote:
>> I translated my python wily to perl. It should end up on CPAN if
>> I can work out a suitable namespace for it.
>>
>> For the moment, it can be found at:
>>
>> http://sam.holden.id.au/software/plwily/
>>
>> And is licensed under both the GPL and the Artistic license, ala perl.
>
>I'll admit that I don't do much with it anymore, but is there a problem with
>the existing Perl interface to Wily?
As with the existing python interface, the existing perl interface is a
wrapper around the C library. Which means you need the wily source (or
at least a bit of it) and the perl headers and a C compiler in order to
compile it. Whereas my code is just plain old perl.
That probably doesn't matter to many people, but I dislike XS perl
modules and there are no performance issues with talking to wily (the
message passing overhead swamps things, I suspect anyway).
The existing perl module code I have (perl-0.06.tgz) which may not be
the most recent, also doesn't compile due to perl namespace clean ups.
It's trivial to fix by adding -DPERL_POLLUTE to the DEFINE string in
Makefile.PL. Though I only noticed that just now when I tried it.
So there isn't a "problem" as such, just a preference for easy
no-c-compiler required modules. The only thing that comes close to a
problem is that debian, for example, has a wily package which doesn't
include the perl module and doesn't have a libwily-perl package. So if
you use the debian wily package and want to use the existing perl module
you have to download the wily source in order to compile it.
Of course, who uses wily without compiling it, anyway???
I guess I'll attack ruby next, at least then I won't just be reinventing
something as I did with python and perl.
--
Sam
Other related posts:
