Re: [MacPerl] OSA Extention for PERL

[Strider <Strider@clarityconnect.com>]

>pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>>At 11.13 8/8/97, Strider wrote:
>>>Awhile back, a MacPERL OSA extention was released. If it worked (which it
>>>generally doesn't =) it would allow the Script Editor to edit PERL scripts
>>>(yipee) and (if I understand correctly) allow PERL scripts to be accessed
>>>as standalones like Applescript Standalones and droplets.
>
>"Standalone" if you drop an 1.5M component into your system folder.

Granted, but it sounds less daunting. Frankly, I'm thinking of my bosses
here. If I said 'just use this extention that doesn't conflict with
anything' they'd say sure. But when I tried to get them to put MacPerl on
our server, it was "memory, conflicts, and space" all the time. They just
wouldn't think that way about a no-hassle or setup extention. I think that
they're not alone, either.

>>You don't need a "plugin" for the Yellow Box, as UNIX perl runs natively
>>there already.  I think what is needed -- Matthias, please tell me if I am
>>wrong -- is better OSA support from Apple for language developers.
>
>The limitations of the MacOS version of the OSA Perl plugin have little to do
>with lack of support from Apple (except that I ran into some obscure
>corners of
>the code fragment manager which seemed to be undocumented). I just lost
>interest in the current OSA component when it became evident what sort of
>memory consumption and startup time it had.

Well, if it helps any, there ARE others (ok, other =) who'd be interested
in it still- that was the main purpose of my original post: just to let you
know the interest was there.

>>>It would also be extremely advantageous for web site developers, because
>>>the software would be loaded as part of the system- it would be even
>>>faster, and require less RAM (at least, I think it probably would =)
>
>The MacPerl application represents a negligible portion of the code size and
>memory consumption.

Again, I'm thinking more of my superiors- an extention is much cleaner and
nicer sounding- the way PERL is (I think) supposed to be: you install it
(on linux, anyway) and it's out of the way- you use it to run scripts, and
that's it. No need for a built in editor, etc. (I DO use the build in
editor- I just do it because it's easier, though, on my machine =)

>>>One of the most major setbacks of macintosh-based perl is that scripts
>>>can't just be distributed, like they can in UNIX.
>
>As a commercial UNIX developer, I can assure you that many companies can *not*
>"just distribute" perl scripts. Perl is *not* guaranteed to be available, and
>an UN*X Perl installation is harder than a MacPerl installation.

True- but in that aspect, I'm NOT thinking about my bosses. It'd be nice to
be able to post, say, a socket program on the net, and be able to assume
that everyone had it. And if they didn't, they'd think "oh, just an
extention- that's ok".

Really, and I know this is no basis for writing a program, it's a matter of
preconcieved notions. Extentions are small and fast and painless.
Applications, especially with library files, are large and bulky and
difficult, ESPECIALLY if you don't need the editing, and you're just using
them to run one or two apps or scripts- it just wouldn't be worth it for
most people. But the extention- I think real 'perl integration' could be
possible on the mac with something like that. Hell, I'd develop it if I
could, but I run Supercard, Perl, and Java(badly =) and so there's no way I
could.

-Strider



***** Want to unsubscribe from this list?
***** Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to mac-perl-request@iis.ee.ethz.ch