Mailing-List: contact dev-help@perl.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:32:28 +0800 (SGT)
From: Stas Bekman <stas@stason.org>
To: "modperl-2.0 dev-list" <dev@perl.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Inline.pm and the future of XS
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103051046560.1422-100000@jack.sergeant.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103052222390.29944-100000@llp.extropia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Matt Sergeant wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > Sounds cool, but what are the chances that it'll get into the main Perl
> > distro? If it doesn't it doesn't make sense to exercise to different
> > macro languages.
>
> What are the chances Inline.pm will make it in? Well actually probably
> higher since Brian works for ActiveState...

I believe that the chances are very high, and not because of AS.

If Inline.pm compiles the code on all platforms XS does, it makes much
easier for developers to embed C/C++/other for optimizations, when before
that they didn't do it as they had XS as a barrier. It's especially easy
to use if you need to write a glueing code for some existing C API, so if
some new library comes out tomorrow, it takes probably minutes to write
the glue.

Of course it'll take the same time to do the same for XS gurus, but
remember that many aren't.

So having a low entry point for better code and wider range of Perl
interfaces is a good reason to include Inline.pm in the core distro.

... but I guess we are drifting off the mod_perl topic here

> > IMHO, that's the main reason SWIG wasn't really adopted by the Perl
> > community. If you still need XS to distribute your code on XS, you learn
> > it anyway, so you use it.
>
> SWIG wasn't adopted because for many things it sucked :-)
>
> But yes, I totally understand your point. Hopefully by attacking from the
> XML standpoint, which the core perl people are starting to realise is an
> important part of where Perl needs to be, we might have a chance at that,
> but I'm not going to break my back trying to get it "core" sanctioned -
> they haven't added *any* significant new modules into core in a long time.
>
> Oh, and did I mention that MoC requires Python as a pre-processor right
> now - it kinda has that going against it too :-)

Oh, then it's probably doesn't even worth the effort to try to put it in.
The ego factor is too high :( but as long as it keeps cool people doing
cool things, let them do what they like or do it yourself, if you have
enough power/time...

Well, I'm sure that if you Matt will be in charge of it we will see MoC in
the next perl patch... Were you ever offered a marketing position ? :)

Moreover if you believe that AS has the power to change things, which I
believe is true, why don't you pitch MoC to Dick Hardt? These folks are
looking for new things and they are definitely into python...


_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman              JAm_pH     --   Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/       mod_perl Guide  http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas@stason.org   http://apachetoday.com http://logilune.com/
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/