Re: Wish Setup would accept my Perl

["Brian Mathis" <brian dot mathis at gmail dot com>]

On 11/6/07, Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@defaria.com> wrote:
>
> Would you similarly complain that you already have del and dir and not
> want rm and ls?
>
> Personally I dislike ActiveState Perl. Things like setsid just don't
> work and signal handling is not reliable (that may be better). Plus
> things written for ActiveState sometimes don't port easily to
> Linux/Unix. This is not the case with Cygwin's Perl.
> --
> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
>

I must say with respect that if there are problems porting from
Activestate to linux/unix, that's a problem with the programmer who
wrote the code, not Perl.  There's no reason that code that's general
in nature would not be portable.  Of course, anything that uses
specific Windows services could not be ported.

ActiveState Perl works very nicely (and the alternative is what,
vbscript?) on Windows.  I have a feeling the last time you used it was
a long time ago, because signals, threading, ans everything else works
quite well -- but opinions for or against are really off topic from
the OP.

--
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/