I think I dropped Strawberry Perl after trying to install DBI + DBD::mysql on Windows 7 (which is a no brainer in ActivePerl just click on the ppms and choose install).īut maybe that's solved by now. Even for the Windows version of the Apache HTTP server, there is a precompiled mod_perl (2.0.4) ppm available which will (did for me) work out of the box with ActivePerl 5. This was for me, in the long run, a much better (and more robust) choice. The PPM installer included in ActivePerl allows you to add alternative PPM repositories which will give you access to almost all useful Perl modules available on CPAN - but prepared and tested for Windows. Give it a try! 推荐答案Īfter having used both for years, I'd say, for me at least, ActivePerl is a much more convenient choice. And I have to say one should just learn Perl - it's a very beautiful language. Strawberry Perl is at least as great if not greater. It was super-easy for me to get started with Perl language while I was on vacation when I wasn't always online. I ended up going with ActivePerl simply because it comes with offline documentation (in HTML) - a great life-savior for those who are on the road or just not always connected. I actually liked both which is a good thing! One can't go wrong with either of these. I gave both distributions a run for a couple of weeks. And I wonder: What should I pick to get started? If I pick one how hard, is it to migrate to the other? There's a clear trade-off between those two. It also says that ActivePerl has a lot of prepackaged modules which are easier to install with PPM. Wikipedia says that Strawberry Perl comes with additional development tools to compile CPAN modules if necessary. I read about two rival distributions available for Windows platform (I guess there's just Perl on other OSes :). I'm totally new to Perl, but I'd like to try it out.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |