Welcome to the Monastery | |
PerlMonks |
Re: Cygwin vs. Active State Perl Installby Asim (Hermit) |
on Apr 24, 2006 at 21:55 UTC ( [id://545401]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
This is a tough one, because I understand why your programmer is pushing cygwin. It compiles many Perl modules that need a C-compiler, for one. That can make a difference in any number of things, including how easy it is to upgrade and fix bugs in older versions of modules. However, I tend to lean towards recommending ActiveState's version of Perl for Windows. If he's the only expert on cygwin, and especially if he's the only guy who's savvy on Unix and Unix-like Operating Systems, the act of compiling modules will be up to him. ActiveState's PPM bypasses much of the "Makefile + 3 makes" stuff, making it more useable for the person beginning in Perl. Mind you, the cpan shell(s) that are "native" to Perl are almost as easy and reliable as PPM, but when they break, they tend to break hard. Also, ActiveState puts a lot of work into developing Windows-specific modules. Although you can use 'em with cygwin's Perl, they are usually already there with ActiveState, and well-supported by them. I've developed rather involved and complex Windows login scripts with these ActiveState modules, and found them to work well. All in all, I'd vote for the ease of ActiveState's implementation over the edge in compatibility that cygwin gives you, especially if you're working mostly on Windows systems. I totally understand your programmer's good intentions, yet think he might consider who'll have to support this, in the long run. Does that help? If you tell us more about what the DOS programs are doing, we might be able to give more detailed commentary. ----Asim, known to some as Woodrow.
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom
|
|