Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2009
Re: perl-5.12
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
demerphq
Date:
November 1, 2009 14:22
Subject:
Re: perl-5.12
Message ID:
9b18b3110911011421h5ebb6832wffd67b264ca2a8fe@mail.gmail.com
2009/11/1 Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni <maddingue@free.fr>:
> demerphq wrote:
>
>> 2009/11/1 Gabor Szabo <szabgab@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni
>>> <maddingue@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gabor Szabo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, that might be true for operating systems where perl is bundled
>>>>> but not for others such as Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Call me a young padawan (or whatever would be the corresponding word in
>>>> klingon if you prefer), but I have yet to see a true production platform
>>>> using Perl on Windows.
>>>
>>> I am not sure what do you mean by that
>
> If you refer to my speaking of "true production platform", I was meaning
> platforms with a 3+ digits number of servers. Sorry if I sound pretentious
> saying that, but I hear too many people who think that "upgrade" is an easy
> task that can be done in the blink of an eye. It isn't, especially when
> working in a big enough production environment.
Personally I dont think thats an appropriate metric. Lots of
production systems run on a minimal number of servers yet deal with
business critical systems. Finance and billing systems for instance
often have only a few servers involved.
>>> but I know several companies using
>>> Perl on Windows in all kinds of systems. Some are customer facing, some
>>> are
>>> in-house applications.
>>
>> Me too.
>
>
> I'm glad to be proven wrong. Can these companies be named with how they're
> using Perl, for illustrating when we advertise about Perl? (I'll make two
> such talks during november).
No. Unfortunately not.
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next