On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:45:17PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> When I last tried it (over a year ago) running the 5.005 regression tests
> with the standard libraries coming out of a zip file took about the same
> time as running the regression tests with the standard libraries on disk.
>
> [x86 BSD unix, fairly big machine, SCSI disks - something I'd expect to
> be good at IO]
Alot of spare memory? I'd suspect it probably just tossed everything
into the cache. Windows is fairly awful at doing that sort of thing.
Also, did you decompress the libraries once at the start of the test
and then throw them on disk? Or did you decompress for each and every
test script?
> 1: I don't see why we need to decide on actual format right now. Surely
> what we want to be able to do with it is more important?
We don't. The format doesn't matter at all, it will be flexible.
What are we doing with it? We are killing perl2exe. The niches of:
1. "I don't want to use modules because the end-user might not have
them installed"
2. "My end-users might not have Perl installed" Bundling a Perl
interpretor with your program (until perlcc is viable)
3. "I want to hide my source code from Evil Vicious Users!" A
consequence of #2, however we can make the "hiding" very, very
cheesy and pun can "decompile". But that's good enough for most.
Unfortunately, this might hurt IndigoSTAR (makers of perl2exe) and the
last thing I want to do with par is damage a Perl-friendly business.
I'm not entirely sure how to approach them on this.
> 2: Is this really still language? If not, where should we be discussing it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] anyone?
