noob asks: differences Activestate 5.8.x vs 5.6.x. pros vs cons of each?

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by noob@public.com, Jun 19, 2006.

  1. Guest

    For a Windows ME system, is there a reason not to use v5.8.8 and use
    5.6.1 instead? Also for Win9x or WinXP.
    , Jun 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    wrote:
    > For a Windows ME system, is there a reason not to use v5.8.8 and use
    > 5.6.1 instead? Also for Win9x or WinXP.


    I would always recommend the latest and greatest, unless the're a
    very good reason not to use it.

    So far, the only advantage I've found to using the 5.6.1 version is
    that some modules are available in ActiveState's 5.6 ppm that are not
    available yet in the 5.8 ppm repository.

    However, this is fairly rare, and the more time passes, the more the
    5.8 repositories will get updated, making such an issue less and less
    likely. (And presumably making the opposite scenario (where a module
    is available in 5.8 but not in 5.6) more likely.)

    So if it's between 5.6.1 and 5.8.8, my advice is to use 5.8.8.

    -- Jean-Luc
    , Jun 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Phil Guest

    There is a bug in the memory handling of ActivePerl 5.8.x which
    may cause EXTREME slowdowns when handling large blocks of memory.
    One of my scripts was around 100x slower running on 5.8.x as
    compared to the speed on 5.6.x. Other people have experienced
    this problem as well.


    In article <>, wrote:

    > For a Windows ME system, is there a reason not to use v5.8.8 and use
    > 5.6.1 instead? Also for Win9x or WinXP.
    Phil, Jun 19, 2006
    #3
  4. Sisyphus Guest

    "Phil" <> wrote in message
    news:24.queensu.ca...
    > There is a bug in the memory handling of ActivePerl 5.8.x which
    > may cause EXTREME slowdowns when handling large blocks of memory.
    > One of my scripts was around 100x slower running on 5.8.x as
    > compared to the speed on 5.6.x. Other people have experienced
    > this problem as well.
    >


    Sounds interesting .... can you post a simple demo (or provide more info ...
    eg a relevant link) ?

    Cheers,
    Rob
    Sisyphus, Jun 20, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    So except for a possible mem problem mentioned here, there are no real
    differences? Meaning differences in capabilities or in module
    installation. I have 5.6.1.638 which is updated from a several years
    old installation, and find that very little of the CPAN stuff will
    load, not even the latest CPAN itself.

    If it is the same with 5.8.whatever_is_current, then I guess I'm
    stuck.
    , Jun 20, 2006
    #5
  6. wrote:
    > So except for a possible mem problem mentioned here, there are no real
    > differences?


    Who said that? There are lots of differences. People said there are few
    reasons to stay with 5.6. Most perl scripts written for 5.6 (or 5.5)
    will still work with 5.8, but the converse isn't necessarily true.


    > Meaning differences in capabilities or in module
    > installation. I have 5.6.1.638 which is updated from a several years
    > old installation, and find that very little of the CPAN stuff will
    > load, not even the latest CPAN itself.


    Which is an excellent reason to upgrade to 5.8.x. Very few people will
    still test their modules with 5.6.x.

    However, on Windows you are probably better off using PPM instead of
    CPAN. Many CPAN modules need a C-compiler.

    hp

    --
    _ | Peter J. Holzer | Man könnte sich [die Diskussion] auch
    |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR/LUGA | sparen, wenn man sie sich einfach sparen
    | | | | würde.
    __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Ralph Angenendt in dang 2006-04-15
    Peter J. Holzer, Jun 20, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:58:29 +0200, "Peter J. Holzer"
    <> wrote:
    >
    > Which is an excellent reason to upgrade to 5.8.x. Very few people will
    > still test their modules with 5.6.x.
    >
    > However, on Windows you are probably better off using PPM instead of
    > CPAN. Many CPAN modules need a C-compiler.
    >


    Thanx, I plan to update if I hear no serious reasons not to. If nmake
    won't work, I'm reluctant to load a C-compiler just for a couple small
    projects, and they need to be portable anyway. Getting a user
    elsewhere to load & build that much isn't doable.

    Is the reason that so few modules are available on PPM that they can't
    be made to work on Windows, or just extreme lag-time?
    , Jun 20, 2006
    #7
    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. Kumar Vijay Mishra

    PSL pros and cons

    Kumar Vijay Mishra, Sep 29, 2004, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,581
    vhdlcohen
    Oct 2, 2004
  2. Benny
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    428
    Paul Wistrand
    Mar 1, 2004
  3. Lucas Tam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,003
    Reza Alirezaei
    Aug 9, 2005
  4. J.S.
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    6,069
    shawpnendu
    May 20, 2009
  5. Randall Parker

    Pros and cons for using https on a logon page?

    Randall Parker, Dec 4, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    747
    nimd4
    May 17, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page