Front page | perl.wxperl.users |
Postings from January 2013
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Ryan Jendoubi <ryan.jendoubi@gmail.com> wrote: > My worry is that, irrespective of whatever internal problems it might have, > the number of itches out there in the world for wxPerl to scratch is > dwindling. What do you think? Well, I would say that where-ever you have some of the following wxPerl would be a good choice: - a large output window, say greater than 15". - an application that needs multiple cloned or redirected outputs like a financial application with multiple monitors acting as one, or something with an over-head projector. - a networked application or multi-user database, like applications with report generation - specific external devices that need specific device drivers (like external cameras or document scanners), Skype, for instance is not web-based, although many of its peripheral functions are. It could have been written in wxPerl (although it probably wasn't); - the central admin side of any App. Eg While Facebook works well on Apps, I would bet that Facebook employees in Facebook inc don't use an browser-based application. - development applications, like er... Padre. And if you're using wxPerl, you have Perl expertise and you can use those same people to write websites. And it's multiplatform! It's such an economic win-win, I don't know why more people/companies don't use it. The ideal perfect language in an ideal world with our current level of interface expectation (like iPad/Android etc), would be a cross-platform friendly wxObjective-c (maybe with a .cox file-suffix and a gox gnu compiler:) with cross-platform, interpreted wxObjective-Perl for rapid deployment. You'd be able to write web-pages, apps, desktop applications, have access to cpan and stdlib and all cross-platform. Happy dreaming! Regards SteveThread Previous | Thread Next