Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Your skill will accomplish
what the force of many cannot

Re^4: Build.PL versus Makefile.PL

by educated_foo (Vicar)
on Feb 10, 2007 at 05:16 UTC ( #599329=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^3: Build.PL versus Makefile.PL
in thread Build.PL versus Makefile.PL

Note that the first link is to a post by M::B's author, and the second basically points to the third, then says "nyah, nyah, I'm only supporting M::B with my modules." Also, as has been stated many times here and elsewhere, these only mention reasons for *authors*, not for *users*. As a user I find M::B a step backwards, and as an author I've never needed its extra features. So if these are the "plenty of good reasons", color me unconvinced.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Build.PL versus Makefile.PL
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Feb 10, 2007 at 07:19 UTC

    Did I hear you volunteer to keep the link to whatever Microsoft calls their free make equivalent up to date so that people who want to install CPAN modules on Windows when they already have Perl installed can do it simply and easily?

    Let me know if you need more advantages of M::B (or, more properly, shortcomings of EU::MM). I could tell you stories about MY::....

      And not being able to run Build.PL due to missing Module::Build at all is an advantage right now why?

      There is the Vanilla/Strawberry Perl initiative which caters for the people who don't have Visual C and the corresponding make tool, and so far I think that's the better approach than waiting for 5.10 becoming so widespread that using Module::Build becomes a viable path.

      Another very good option is Module::Install, which even tells the user where/how to download and install nmake if it's not found. Which EU:MM could do as well, but ...

        How about the fact that extending EU::MM is an exercise in frustration while extening M::B is much easier. Module::Install, while ok, is Adam Kennedy's frustration manifesting itself.

        The point here is that Perl shouldn't have to depend on make, period. If you are installing a Perl module, you are guaranteed to have Perl. There is no need to depend on an outside tool that 90% of all computers in the world don't have installed by default.

        Now, granted, M::B should probably have gone the pmake route vs. re-rolling that wheel, but that's another complaint.

        My criteria for good software:
        1. Does it work?
        2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
      To be honest, I know almost nothing of Microsoft's make-a-like, because I avoid Windows most of the time. I gather EU::MM works with Windows Make's current state. In my UN*X/Mac experience, M::B is a poorly-reinvented EU::MM wheel, but I can't vouch for Vista.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://599329]
[LanX]: I think tobyink was on a good track with his redesign, pitty the pmdevs/gods didn't try to continue the approach of a modern responsive design
[holli]: *sigh* why has there to be drama in such a thread?
[LanX]: ?
[holli]: Re^2: Let's Make PerlMonks Great Again! -- suggestions and dreams - STFU and write code already (start already)

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (5)
As of 2017-11-20 19:42 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    In order to be able to say "I know Perl", you must have:

    Results (292 votes). Check out past polls.