Re: [MacPerl-Porters] Identifying Ported Modules

[Matthew Langford <langfml [at] eng [dot] auburn [dot] edu>]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Chris Nandor wrote:

> At 00.36 -0600 2000.01.12, Matthew Langford wrote:
> >As you know, all that is really relevant for most modules is what flavor
> >of 68K versus PPC.  As far as I'm concerned, CPAN makes no sense for
> >statically compiled installations.
> 
> I don't understand this.  Most modules on CPAN have nothing to do with XS
> or C code.  Most modules on CPAN that work on MacPerl work fine on the
> statically linked MacPerl.

You are right.  That last sentence was a stupid thing to say.
Manufacturer's recall.  (The first sentence was still relevant, but only
to modules with binaries, on a different vein of thought.)


> >Also, IMNSHO, 68K is very close to
> >obsolete, but perhaps CFM68K has a year or two of life left.
> 
> I disagree.  There are lots of 040s out there with a lot of life left.

Maybe.  What's the last MacOS they can run?  8.x?  Will they have Carbon
support?  If you and/or others stop providing binaries because MacOS X
makes compilation easy, will they be able to run anything other than core
Perl?  If MacOS X takes off, Carbonization and the "normal" perl will
further marginalize 68K users to a tiny, tiny minority.

And the way you feel about providing binaries for non-techie users, I feel
about providing development environment support for ancient history.  The
irony in this statement comes from the fact that I'm writing this on my
PowerMac 7100/80, one or one-and-a-half generations removed from the
'040s.  :)


--
MattLangford 


==== Want to unsubscribe from this list?
==== Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to macperl-porters-request@macperl.org