ides

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Robin, Apr 24, 2004.

  1. Robin

    Robin Guest

    I'm thinking about perl ides in VB or Visual CPP and I'm wondering if
    someone has some good links on how it's done or some information on how one
    could access the perl binary to produce output in a window on windows?
    Thanks.


    --
    Regards,
    -Robin
    --
    [ webmaster @ infusedlight.net ]
     
    Robin, Apr 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robin wrote:

    > I'm thinking about perl ides


    Beware the ides of Perl! (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

    > in VB or Visual CPP and I'm wondering if
    > someone has some good links on how it's done or some information on how
    > one could access the perl binary to produce output in a window on windows?


    ActiveState makes a product called "Visual Perl" that integrates into
    Microsoft's Visual Studio. I don't know if it will help do GUI stuff from
    Perl though.

    <http://www.activestate.com/Products/Visual_Perl/>

    sherm--

    PS: If you ever want to do something similar on a Mac, have a look at
    CamelBones. ;-)

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
     
    Sherm Pendley, Apr 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robin

    Lukas Mai Guest

    Purl Gurl schrob:
    [...]
    > Perl itself is written in C++ language and compiled with
    > MS Visual C++ version 5 or version 6, as is Apache.


    Wrong. Perl itself is written in C and can be compiled with
    any C compiler.

    [...]
    > Knowing ANSI C first _really_ helps.


    Which one? C89 or C99? :)

    HTH, Lukas
    --
    unsigned add(unsigned a,unsigned b){return a&&b?add((a&b)*2,a^b):a^b;}
     
    Lukas Mai, Apr 25, 2004
    #3
  4. Robin

    Bart Lateur Guest

    Lukas Mai wrote:

    >Purl Gurl schrob:
    >[...]
    >> Perl itself is written in C++ language and compiled with
    >> MS Visual C++ version 5 or version 6, as is Apache.

    >
    >Wrong. Perl itself is written in C and can be compiled with
    >any C compiler.


    *Any* C compiler? OK, I invite you to release a port of perl for
    Windows, using the free C compilers LCC or OpenWatcom; or at least the
    additional files/mods one would need to be able to build it.

    So far I've heard not one report from anyone who actually succeeded in
    building perl for Win32, apart from using Visual C or Cygwin.

    --
    Bart.
     
    Bart Lateur, Apr 25, 2004
    #4
  5. Robin

    Robin Guest

    "Purl Gurl" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Robin wrote:
    >
    > > I'm thinking about perl ides in VB or Visual CPP and I'm wondering if
    > > someone has some good links on how it's done or some information on how

    one
    > > could access the perl binary to produce output in a window on windows?

    >
    >
    > You can now purchase Microsoft Visual C++ version 6 on Ebay
    > for under one-hundred-fifty dollars. Nice edition which will
    > run under true Win32 systems, Win9.x and NT4 systems.
    >
    > This is a very good piece of software despite being from
    > Microsoft. Best feature is emphasis upon MSDOS creativity,
    > both Perl and Apache are MSDOS based for Win32 systems,
    > and for NT5 such as 2000 and XP.
    >
    > What you can do with C++ is limited only by your imagination,
    > such as compiling Perl, Apache and modules for both.
    >
    > Perl itself is written in C++ language and compiled with
    > MS Visual C++ version 5 or version 6, as is Apache.
    >
    > Writing a GUI is a snap.
    >
    > O'Reilly - C++ The Core Language
    >
    > A good start. Amazon offers dozens of C++ books
    > for really cheap, four or five dollars for books
    > normally three times as much. Bought seven books
    > on C++ for under fifty dollars. Look in their
    > associated dealers section, "used and new" books.
    >
    > Knowing ANSI C first _really_ helps.


    thanks perl gurl, yeah I'm gonna need some books. The core language? Oreilly
    rocks man.
    Btw, thanks for the info earlier about parsing my query string. here's my
    little subroutine.

    #!/usr/bin/perl
    use strict;
    use warnings;
    print querystringparse ("Just+Another+Perl+Hacker.");

    sub querystringparse
    {
    my ($query1) = shift (@_); #the query string
    my (@splitquery, $splitqueryret);
    @splitquery = split (/+/, $query1);
    $splitqueryret = join (' ', @splitquery);
    return $splitqueryret;
    }
     
    Robin, Apr 25, 2004
    #5
  6. Robin

    Robin Guest

    > #!/usr/bin/perl
    > use strict;
    > use warnings;
    > print querystringparse ("Just+Another+Perl+Hacker.");
    >
    > sub querystringparse
    > {
    > my ($query1) = shift (@_); #the query string
    > my (@splitquery, $splitqueryret);
    > @splitquery = split (/+/, $query1);
    > $splitqueryret = join (' ', @splitquery);
    > return $splitqueryret;
    > }


    #!/usr/bin/perl

    use strict;
    use warnings;

    my $val = querystringparse1 ('Just+Another+Perl+Hacker.');
    print $val;

    sub querystringparse1
    {
    my ($query1) = @_; #the query string
    my (@splitquery, $splitqueryret);
    @splitquery = split (/\+/, $query1);
    $splitqueryret = join (' ', @splitquery);
    return $splitqueryret;
    }

    now it works.
     
    Robin, Apr 25, 2004
    #6
  7. Also sprach Purl Gurl:

    > Purl Gurl wrote:


    >> Carefully research and read about form data parsing.
    >> There are one-thousand and one security issues which
    >> should be addressed. Never assume any form submission
    >> will contain data you expect. Always incorporate test
    >> routines to ensure submitted data is not harmful.

    >
    >
    > Here is a well know example.
    >
    > Bring up your favorite MSIE browser and visit:
    >
    > http://x42.com/test/ie_feature.html
    >
    > Observe results. Nothing harmful, just annoying.
    >
    > Netscape / Mozilla is immune.
    >
    > That type of data could be easily submitted to
    > a chat line, a guestbook, message board, or
    > any number of other cgi application types,
    > through form submission data.


    Note however that this is not an issue with server-side security. If I
    were to run a webserver, I'd not really be concerned with clients that
    crash on certain occasions. I'd invest my time only on ensuring the
    webserver's integrity. I wouldn't care much about visitors using buggy
    software to connect to my server. That'd be their issue.

    > Dignity is a notion unfamiliar to many boys here.


    When it comes to that, no one is naturally ever going to be a match for
    you. We can live with that rather easily. :)

    Tassilo
    --
    $_=q#",}])!JAPH!qq(tsuJ[{@"tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
    pam{rekcahbus})(rekcah{lrePbus})(lreP{rehtonabus})!JAPH!qq(rehtona{tsuJbus#;
    $_=reverse,s+(?<=sub).+q#q!'"qq.\t$&."'!#+sexisexiixesixeseg;y~\n~~dddd;eval
     
    Tassilo v. Parseval, Apr 25, 2004
    #7
  8. Robin

    Robin Guest

    "Purl Gurl" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bart Lateur wrote:
    >
    > > Lukas Mai wrote:
    > > > Purl Gurl wrote:

    >
    > (snipped)
    >
    > > >> Perl itself is written in C++ language and compiled with
    > > >> MS Visual C++ version 5 or version 6, as is Apache.

    >
    > > > Wrong. Perl itself is written in C and can be compiled with
    > > > any C compiler.

    >
    > > *Any* C compiler? OK, I invite you to release a port of perl for
    > > Windows, using the free C compilers LCC or OpenWatcom; or at least the
    > > additional files/mods one would need to be able to build it.

    >
    > > So far I've heard not one report from anyone who actually succeeded in
    > > building perl for Win32, apart from using Visual C or Cygwin.

    >
    > I have read Perl can be compiled with GCC, Watcom and others.
    > However, this reading also indicates "all else" must be
    > compiled with the same compiler leaving you with a version
    > which is not portable. In short, Perl, modules, other addon
    > programs, all must be compiled using the same compiler.
    >
    > Nonetheless, like you, I have yet to come across any citations
    > of Perl or Apache being compiled with anything but Microsoft
    > Visual C++ software, version 5 or version 6 software.
    >
    > Of interest, MS C++ versions 5 and 6 are Win9x / NT4 based,
    > more specific, true MSDOS based.
    >
    > Almost all visited sites indicate you must use Microsoft
    > to compile Perl, Microsoft version 5 or later. Currently,
    > I am not sure Microsoft "Net" could compile Perl because
    > of the Net version being so heavily NT5 based. Traditional
    > i386 architecture prevails in most Win32 programs.
    >
    > Apache employs many include files which are Microsoft specific
    > which would cause problems for most open source compilers;
    > those includes would need to be imported and modified.
    > I recall Perl also makes use of some MS based includes.
    >
    > Interesting note on this, Apache 1.3.x series for Win32
    > work with perfection, save for 1.3.28 and 1.3.29 versions
    > having an error message bug. Apache 2.x series are written
    > specifically for NT5 machines and all Apache 2.x series
    > are extremely buggy and prone to crashing. Could be these
    > new Apache 2.x versions are compiled with a MS Net compiler.
    > This might be a result of Apache for Win32 being MSDOS
    > based and NT5 / Net programs are not true MSDOS based.
    >
    > Another note is I use Watcom 5 C++ builder, in addition
    > to Microsoft. To build some programs I must import includes
    > from Microsoft into Watcom for compilation. This is rather
    > tedious because of having track down includes which are
    > enclosed in includes; snowball effect. Many of those files
    > must be modified to work with Watcom.
    >
    > Compiling Perl, Apache, even Mozilla, is a very daunting
    > task riddle with problems and complex issues, regardless
    > if compiled Unix style or Win32 style.
    >
    > Path of least resistance is MS Visual C++ version 5 or 6
    > with Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 service pack installed, when
    > a Win32 package is needed.
    >
    >
    > Purl Gurl


    yeah, come up with a citation, it can be
    copied/mutilated/edited/extracted/compiled with anything...including
    Benchmark.pm

    -Robin
     
    Robin, Apr 26, 2004
    #8
  9. Robin

    GreenLight Guest

    Purl Gurl <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    > Of interest, MS C++ versions 5 and 6 are Win9x / NT4 based,
    > more specific, true MSDOS based.
    >


    Could you please stop saying stuff like this? NT4 is no more "MSDOS
    based" than I am. Microsoft wrote Windows NT 3.5 from scratch, more
    than a decade ago. It was not MSDOS, and was not based upon MSDOS. All
    versions of NT/Win2000/WinXP come from this codebase.
     
    GreenLight, Apr 26, 2004
    #9
  10. Purl Gurl wrote:
    > I did not state NT4 is MSDOS based although it is.
    > All NT machines are based on MSDOS. Can an NT
    > machine boot in the absence of MSDOS?


    Yes. 95/98/ME is built on a built-in advanced MS-DOS, but NT/2000/XP is
    a new operating system for which an MS-DOS emulator is supplied.

    --
    John W. Kennedy
    "Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
    feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
    -- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
     
    John W. Kennedy, Apr 26, 2004
    #10
  11. Robin

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Purl Gurl" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > GreenLight, whose lightbulb is rather dim, wrote:
    >
    > > NT4 is no more "MSDOS based" than I am.

    >
    > I did not state NT4 is MSDOS based although it is.
    > All NT machines are based on MSDOS. Can an NT
    > machine boot in the absence of MSDOS?
    >


    Ahh, now we get to the root of your stupidity. Since all computers require a
    BIOS in order to boot, does that mean that all operating system are based on
    your computer's BIOS? You would be quite the scientist if there hadn't been
    that little thing called the Enlightenment.

    You ought to upgrade your copy of Windows 95 before you go making these
    absurd statements about how all Windows systems work. Try and get it through
    that thick, low-browed skull of yours that NT *does not* run on ms-dos.

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Apr 27, 2004
    #11
  12. On 26 Apr 2004 12:04:14 -0700, (GreenLight) wrote:

    >Purl Gurl <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >>
    >> Of interest, MS C++ versions 5 and 6 are Win9x / NT4 based,
    >> more specific, true MSDOS based.

    >
    >Could you please stop saying stuff like this? NT4 is no more "MSDOS
    >based" than I am. Microsoft wrote Windows NT 3.5 from scratch, more
    >than a decade ago. It was not MSDOS, and was not based upon MSDOS. All
    >versions of NT/Win2000/WinXP come from this codebase.


    Although MS did a rewrite of NT newer versions, the NT OS itself is
    based on IBMs OS/2, from what I have learned.

    The full story is more complicated, but it again involves some broken
    promises from MS towards a (once) partner. MS got the job to develop
    OS/2, but resigned, and developed their own solution instead. They
    were also too occupied earing money on the winXX-track.

    --
    mvh/Regards Kåre Olai Lindbach
    (News: Remove '_delete_' and '.invalid')
     
    Kåre Olai Lindbach, Apr 27, 2004
    #12
  13. On 27 Apr 2004 13:24:33 -0800, (Malcolm
    Dew-Jones) wrote:

    >Kåre Olai Lindbach () wrote:
    >: On 26 Apr 2004 12:04:14 -0700, (GreenLight) wrote:
    >
    >: >Purl Gurl <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >: >>
    >: >> Of interest, MS C++ versions 5 and 6 are Win9x / NT4 based,
    >: >> more specific, true MSDOS based.
    >: >
    >: >Could you please stop saying stuff like this? NT4 is no more "MSDOS
    >: >based" than I am. Microsoft wrote Windows NT 3.5 from scratch, more
    >: >than a decade ago. It was not MSDOS, and was not based upon MSDOS. All
    >: >versions of NT/Win2000/WinXP come from this codebase.
    >
    >: Although MS did a rewrite of NT newer versions, the NT OS itself is
    >: based on IBMs OS/2, from what I have learned.
    >
    >NT was designed and built from scratch under the direction of one Dave
    >Cutler, based on his (Dave's) experience designing and developing RSX-11,
    >VMS, and VAXELN, (all operating systems used by the now defunct Digital
    >Equipment Corp.).
    >
    >I do not beleive it was in anyway "based" on OS/2. Certainly, NT has may
    >fundamental differences, including using 16 bit wide characters in all
    >routines in the kernel, and it was designed to run on numerous different
    >hardware platforms. I doubt that any of that code could have been taken
    >from any OS/2 code.


    Not that I know this for certain, nor know if this url is reliable,
    but:

    "By late 1990, Microsoft had intensified its disagreements with IBM to
    the point where IBM decided that it would have to take some overt
    action to ensure that OS/2 development continued at a reasonable pace.
    IBM, therefore, took over complete development responsibility for OS/2
    1.x, even though it was in its dying days, and OS/2 2.00. Microsoft
    would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after
    this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."

    from:

    http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html

    --
    mvh/Regards Kåre Olai Lindbach
    (News: Remove '_delete_' and '.invalid')
     
    Kåre Olai Lindbach, Apr 27, 2004
    #13
  14. Kåre Olai Lindbach () wrote:
    : On 26 Apr 2004 12:04:14 -0700, (GreenLight) wrote:

    : >Purl Gurl <> wrote in message news:<>...
    : >>
    : >> Of interest, MS C++ versions 5 and 6 are Win9x / NT4 based,
    : >> more specific, true MSDOS based.
    : >
    : >Could you please stop saying stuff like this? NT4 is no more "MSDOS
    : >based" than I am. Microsoft wrote Windows NT 3.5 from scratch, more
    : >than a decade ago. It was not MSDOS, and was not based upon MSDOS. All
    : >versions of NT/Win2000/WinXP come from this codebase.

    : Although MS did a rewrite of NT newer versions, the NT OS itself is
    : based on IBMs OS/2, from what I have learned.

    NT was designed and built from scratch under the direction of one Dave
    Cutler, based on his (Dave's) experience designing and developing RSX-11,
    VMS, and VAXELN, (all operating systems used by the now defunct Digital
    Equipment Corp.).

    I do not beleive it was in anyway "based" on OS/2. Certainly, NT has may
    fundamental differences, including using 16 bit wide characters in all
    routines in the kernel, and it was designed to run on numerous different
    hardware platforms. I doubt that any of that code could have been taken
    from any OS/2 code.
     
    Malcolm Dew-Jones, Apr 27, 2004
    #14
  15. Bart Lateur () wrote:
    : Lukas Mai wrote:

    : >Purl Gurl schrob:
    : >[...]
    : >> Perl itself is written in C++ language and compiled with
    : >> MS Visual C++ version 5 or version 6, as is Apache.
    : >
    : >Wrong. Perl itself is written in C and can be compiled with
    : >any C compiler.

    : *Any* C compiler? OK, I invite you to release a port of perl for
    : Windows, using the free C compilers LCC or OpenWatcom; or at least the
    : additional files/mods one would need to be able to build it.

    : So far I've heard not one report from anyone who actually succeeded in
    : building perl for Win32, apart from using Visual C or Cygwin.

    Perl for win32 is trivial to build using the free borland c compiler. I
    do not know how compatible it is with any extensions, though.
     
    Malcolm Dew-Jones, Apr 27, 2004
    #15
  16. Robin

    Andy Hassall Guest

    On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:27:19 -0700, Purl Gurl <> wrote:

    >Almost all visited sites indicate you must use Microsoft
    >to compile Perl, Microsoft version 5 or later. Currently,
    >I am not sure Microsoft "Net" could compile Perl


    FYI, Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 compiles Perl perfectly well.

    --
    Andy Hassall <> / Space: disk usage analysis tool
    http://www.andyh.co.uk / http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space
     
    Andy Hassall, Apr 27, 2004
    #16
  17. Robin

    Bart Lateur Guest

    Malcolm Dew-Jones wrote:

    >Perl for win32 is trivial to build using the free borland c compiler.


    Too bad I hate Borland. I even made the mistake once to buy a compiler
    box from them, some years ago. A pile of crap, of unknown composition.
    I'm not going to waste any more time with them, free or not.

    >I do not know how compatible it is with any extensions, though.


    If you mean, compatible with an precompiled binaries, as for PPM: Not,
    AFAIK.

    --
    Bart.
     
    Bart Lateur, Apr 28, 2004
    #17
  18. Robin

    Bernard R Guest

    "Robin" <robin @ infusedlight.net> wrote in
    news:c6elkj$ofe$:

    > I'm thinking about perl ides in VB or Visual CPP and I'm wondering if
    > someone has some good links on how it's done or some information on
    > how one could access the perl binary to produce output in a window on
    > windows? Thanks.



    use Tk;
     
    Bernard R, Apr 28, 2004
    #18
  19. Kåre Olai Lindbach wrote:
    > The full story is more complicated, but it again involves some broken
    > promises from MS towards a (once) partner. MS got the job to develop
    > OS/2, but resigned, and developed their own solution instead. They
    > were also too occupied earing money on the winXX-track.


    They also lied outright about their intentions, right up to the last minute.

    --
    John W. Kennedy
    "...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
    should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
    -- Rupert Goodwins
     
    John W. Kennedy, Apr 29, 2004
    #19
  20. Malcolm Dew-Jones wrote:
    > NT was designed and built from scratch under the direction of one Dave
    > Cutler, based on his (Dave's) experience designing and developing RSX-11,
    > VMS, and VAXELN, (all operating systems used by the now defunct Digital
    > Equipment Corp.).
    >
    > I do not beleive it was in anyway "based" on OS/2.


    That is, indeed, one of the lies that Microsoft tells.

    > Certainly, NT has may
    > fundamental differences, including using 16 bit wide characters in all
    > routines in the kernel, and it was designed to run on numerous different
    > hardware platforms.


    So was OS/2.

    --
    John W. Kennedy
    "Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
    ....you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
    it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
    violent, and not because it is unjust."
    -- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
     
    John W. Kennedy, Apr 29, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Slash

    visual IDEs

    Slash, Sep 23, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    973
    Shane Mingins
    Sep 29, 2003
  2. Tim Zhao

    Looking For Decent Java IDEs

    Tim Zhao, Nov 13, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    670
    Dale King
    Nov 17, 2003
  3. Zachary Turner

    Java IDEs

    Zachary Turner, May 2, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    584
  4. Sebastian Jekutsch

    Survey on refactoring activities using IDEs

    Sebastian Jekutsch, Jun 8, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    479
  5. hiwa
    Replies:
    63
    Views:
    1,594
    Dale King
    Jun 1, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page