I wonder whether the ++s were given to the node or to the name. IMO Randal is completely missing the point.
1. From perlcc docs in Perl 5.8:
The code generated in this way is not guaranteed to work. The whole codegen suite ("perlcc" included) should be considered very experimental. Use for production purposes is strongly discouraged.
2. Could you tell me what do you think is the difference between what perl2exe does and what PAR does? So perl2exe uses XOR "encryption" so that the code is not plainly visible in the EXEcutable, how's that different from PAR's zipping of the data? Normal BFU doesn't see what he/she should not but anyone who knows what he's doing gets to the script&modules.
The only difference between perl2exe and PAR is that PAR is free and you can see the source. I don't think this is a valid enough reason for this bashing.
P.S.: Yes, it might be good if perl2exe's docs contained a remark explaining that it's possible to get the source code out of the EXE. If it was in big red letters then maybe even Randal would be happy.