Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from August 2000
Andrew Greene wrote: >Perhaps we could adopt a TeX-like strategy: > > * Any executable called "perl" must be 100% conformant, standard, > passes the "trip tests." > > * Any modified version of perl -- whether because certain features > have been omitted or because certain modules are "compiled in" -- > must be called something else. "siteperl" or "microperl" or > what-have-you. I think this invites the same situation that Java has. Although anything that is certified as 100% pure Java code is supposed to be portable across platforms and certified Java implementations, it isn't. One of perl's great strengths is its portability; this approach will weaken it somewhat. Also, it opens perl to attacks like Microsoft's attack on Java; some company might be tempted to create an implementation of Perl that isn't quite compliant (or they may be lazy testers) and still call it Perl. And then we don't have the resources to sue them like Sun sued Microsoft (for alleged breach of the Java license). Besides, an evil programmer can always kludge their pseudoPerl code to pass the automated test while violating the spirit of the test. Perl4 and Perl5 are already on just about every platform, so I don't see the advantage of allowing multiple vendors/multiple implementations. Chris Oei 61 E. 8th St. #172 coei@chrisoei.com New York, NY 10003 www.chrisoei.com ICQ # 82265728 AOL Instant Messenger: chrisoei Yahoo Messenger: chrisoei