At 11:52 AM 2/8/2001 +0000, Michael G Schwern wrote: >On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 11:21:17AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > I'm not sure this is all necessary. Wouldn't we be reasonably better > off if > > we instead just shipped off bytecode compiled versions of the scripts? > >Sure, except... > 1) You lose your readable source code (discussions of B::Deparse as > a viable alternative > /dev/null) Not unless you strip the bytecode. I want to optionally package the source in the bytecode, since otherwise you can't do some optimizations after the fact on the generated bytecode stream. > 2) You have to make provisions to distribute your documentation > seperately. Presumably you'd package it up in the tar or zip archive containing the fully-compiled program. > 3) It makes it harder to bundle non-Perl things, like configuration > files, images, sound files, etc... If you want to send those along > with the bytecode you windup needing a par-style utility anyway. Once again, you can package it up in the tar or zip archive that you're distributing the program in. > 4) What Brenden said Some of what Brenden said isn't entirely applicable, though much of it is. > 5) Do YOU have a stable bytecode compiler?? I don't. For perl 6? No. Not yet. >Perhaps it wasn't clear, I don't mean to have par as part of 6.0, I >mean to have it out, like, maybe next month if I decide to work on it. I assumed that since you were discussing this on a perl 6 mailing list, you were talking about doing this with perl 6. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunkThread Previous | Thread Next