http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=170669


in reply to Re: Re: Re: What do you think about ActiveState's Visual Perl .NET??
in thread What do you think about ActiveState's Visual Perl .NET??

The point was that if you actually use the ability to interoperate between .NET and Perl, then you have used something that is specific to the Microsoft implementation of .NET which is not supported by other versions of the CLR.

Therefore that is a non-portable thing that is easy to take advantage of. (And is one of Microsoft's platform lock-in tricks even while they make a great song and dance over being platform independent.)

Now if you use Visual Studio to write Perl and you don't interoperate with .NET in the resulting code, then you have no portability problems. But if you use the PerlNet component, expecting to take advantage of the features that Microsoft lists (including portability), then you have fallen for a bit of a sham.

  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think about ActiveState's Visual Perl .NET??

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think about ActiveState's Visual Perl .NET??
by demerphq (Chancellor) on May 31, 2002 at 11:35 UTC
    My understanding of these matters is that if you write .NET specific code then there is no reason to expect cross-platform compatibility. So I dont see that its a sham. Its kindof like writing code that uses System V IPC rouines and expecting it to run on a Win32 box.

    Im sure that when Microsoft said portability they meant from one Win32 Box to another ;-)

    And you dont really believe anything that MS says anyway do you?

    Yves / DeMerphq
    ---
    Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.

      No, I don't believe Microsoft. But others tend to believe their marketing message. Which is a good reason to point out discrepancies between reality and what Microsoft claims in their marketing.