Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2013
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 06:48:19AM -0500, David Golden wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> wrote: > > This is not an ivory-tower nice-to-have - after all there is code in the > > wild (and probably even on CPAN) which uses D::D as a poor man's Sereal > > or some-such. Telling them "you need to upgrade this module, oh and btw > > your serialization code is now 100x slower" is... I can't find the right > > expletive ;) > > Should we reconsider having a pure perl version at all? > > Then someone who tries to upgrade without a compiler just gets "BOOM" > instead of something that works but is 100x slower. This is in interesting thought, with parallels to the Scalar::Util fiasco. And in fact currently this *is* the case - D::D will not build its XS portion and will fail tests. So in a sense it does go BOOM just not early enough. The problem is however that (unlike S::U) the PP version is the complete implementation, and the XS is an incomplete (no deparse and other stuff) but vastly more efficient implementation. But still - +1 on not building without the XS portion (i.e. a make-time failure, not a make test-time failure)Thread Previous | Thread Next