Re^4: [JOB] The Perl Foundation seeks Windows Developer

[rhesa]

Aren't you implying that the AS distribution is the reference to which all Perl module authors should conform? Why wouldn't it be the other way around?

I don't see why AS couldn't switch to gcc for their builds (theoretically speaking). At the very least, Strawberry will give _them_ something to build and test against.

In any case, Strawberry would give module authors a tool to test these things for themselves. The barriers to that are currently too high, in my opinion. Whether they will make use of that option is another question, but it seems obvious that they won't _without_ these tools.

[BrowserUk]

Aren't you implying that the AS distribution is the reference to which all Perl module authors should conform?

No. I'm saying that for the Win32 Perl user, AS is the defacto standard that makes Perl usable on Win32. It maybe that non-win32 Perl users see POSIX as the ultimate expression of cross systems compatibility, but it just misses the mark in so many ways for win32 users and programmers, that moving 2 steps closer to POSIX compatibilty and 15 steps further away from being able to utilise the features of our OS is no progress at all.

Presumably, the purpose of the exercise is to make Perl more usable on Win32? If so, I do not think that you achieve that by throwing away much of what AS perl already provides in order to gain what? I can already build most of CPAN on Win32 with existing tools and most of what I cannot build will not be fixed by throwing away half of what I already have.