Hello, As regards to the benefits over ActivePerl, yes, PXPerl is faster for most scripts, as perlbench reports it. Besides, PXPerl has many more modules already compiled and installed than ActivePerl has. And above all, PXPerl has Parrot and Pugs inside; if you want to play with Perl 6 language with no effort compiling, it's ideal. PXPerl also propose an editor for Perl scripts, which is really great, SciTE.
The other differences may be cosmetic or of convenience. PXPerl has more command line utilities. Looking for documentation is made easy. Documentation may look better thanks to syntax colourizing of Perl statements inside. Plus some other things I forget; the best is that you give it a try. What PXPerl lacks: PerlScript. > > Here is a question out of ignorance then. I currently use ActiveState but > > the ability to use CPAN vs PPM is kind of nice. Since AS only releases stuff > > as binaries, they work. Since I have to compile with PXPerl am I going to > > have problems with nmake on Windows (since most modules lean toward beind > > *nix friendly)? You may encounter problems. Some programmers didn't contemplate their modules being used under Windows. However MakeMaker was designed to be portable and produce portable makefiles. Unless the module creator added extra features and didn't follow the strict MakeMaker rules, modules should compile without efforts. > > That I believe is fine, as they should be binary compatible. Autrijus is absolutely right, PXPerl & ActivePerl are binary compatible. A PPM module must work with PXPerl, and vice versa. > > Also, you don't have to use PXPerl's Perl5 part to play with Pugs and > Parrot; you can continue to use C:\Perl\bin\ as your first PATH entry. That is true! I'm thinking about building PXPerl from ActiverPerl source, so PXPerl would have the best of both worlds: ability to use the PPM and AS PPM modules, as well as being able to compile yourself modules if AS didn't for example. Thanks Autrijus for your answers! Grégoire -- www.pixigreg.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
