On 11/6/07, Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would you similarly complain that you already have del and dir and not > want rm and ls? > > Personally I dislike ActiveState Perl. Things like setsid just don't > work and signal handling is not reliable (that may be better). Plus > things written for ActiveState sometimes don't port easily to > Linux/Unix. This is not the case with Cygwin's Perl. > -- > Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com> >
I must say with respect that if there are problems porting from Activestate to linux/unix, that's a problem with the programmer who wrote the code, not Perl. There's no reason that code that's general in nature would not be portable. Of course, anything that uses specific Windows services could not be ported. ActiveState Perl works very nicely (and the alternative is what, vbscript?) on Windows. I have a feeling the last time you used it was a long time ago, because signals, threading, ans everything else works quite well -- but opinions for or against are really off topic from the OP. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
