speed comparison of Perl to exe solutions

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by drleeds@gmail.com, Sep 2, 2006.

  1. Guest

    I am working on a program which I am giving to people who use only
    Windows machines and do not want to know anything about installing Perl
    or modules.

    I am using the pp tool that comes with Par to create the exe. My
    program uses Strawberry Perl and an assortment of modules, like
    WWW::Mechanize, HTML::TreeBuilder, HTML::Template, File::Slurp. I am
    planning to possibly use Date::Manip and maybe others. I wanted to use
    Win32::printer, but I could not get Strawberry Perl to install it, even
    with force.

    The .exe version of the program runs a little slower than I was hoping
    it would. I have not formally timed it, but it seems like the .pl
    version runs faster. It is hard to tell because the program depends on
    network conditions.

    Is there a difference in the speed of execution of Windows executables
    created by the various Perl to exe solutions? ActiveState, Par or one
    of the other two or more other solutions?

    I am not sure how these programs do what they do and if it is very
    different from one to another. Thank you for any advice on this matter.
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John Bokma Guest

    wrote:

    > I am working on a program which I am giving to people who use only
    > Windows machines and do not want to know anything about installing Perl
    > or modules.
    >
    > I am using the pp tool that comes with Par to create the exe. My
    > program uses Strawberry Perl and an assortment of modules, like
    > WWW::Mechanize, HTML::TreeBuilder, HTML::Template, File::Slurp. I am
    > planning to possibly use Date::Manip and maybe others. I wanted to use
    > Win32::printer, but I could not get Strawberry Perl to install it, even
    > with force.
    >
    > The .exe version of the program runs a little slower than I was hoping
    > it would. I have not formally timed it, but it seems like the .pl
    > version runs faster. It is hard to tell because the program depends on
    > network conditions.


    Odd. I thought that par did nothing else then wrapping perl.exe and some
    modules in a compressed file?

    > Is there a difference in the speed of execution of Windows executables
    > created by the various Perl to exe solutions? ActiveState, Par or one
    > of the other two or more other solutions?
    >
    > I am not sure how these programs do what they do and if it is very
    > different from one to another. Thank you for any advice on this matter.


    No experience with perl2exe. I recall that the end result of the latter is
    much smaller, but I have no idea what they exactly do.

    --
    John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

    Perl help, tutorials, and examples: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    John Bokma, Sep 3, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Bokma Guest

    Kevin Michael Vail <> wrote:

    > In article <Xns9832C2FF5AD1Ecastleamber@130.133.1.4>,
    > John Bokma <> wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > I am not sure how these programs do what they do and if it is very
    >> > different from one to another. Thank you for any advice on this
    >> > matter.

    >>
    >> No experience with perl2exe. I recall that the end result of the
    >> latter is much smaller, but I have no idea what they exactly do.

    >
    > It does the same basic thing as PAR and pp. Depending on options you
    > give it, it can either (a) just put everything in one big .exe file,



    I never saw perl2exe, but I was given a perl2exe generated file + the Perl
    source etc. I recall that PAR generated exe's are around 2 MB for
    starters, and I recall that the exe I got was 700 kb. I have no idea if
    that was because of (b) or (c) :)


    > (b) put everything but the Perl DLL in the big .exe file, or (c) put
    > everything but all DLLs in the big .exe file. In (b) and (c), it


    > I like it better than PAR/pp because of the DLL-copying thing, but
    > that could just be because I've been using it longer and haven't had
    > time to really get things working. To my mind, the ability to add
    > comments to make sure modules get included is a big win; as far as I
    > know, pp make you add command line options for each additional module.


    Which I like more :) You can also add more "use" lines.

    --
    John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

    Perl help, tutorials, and examples: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    John Bokma, Sep 3, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    schrieb:
    > Is there a difference in the speed of execution of Windows executables
    > created by the various Perl to exe solutions? ActiveState, Par or one
    > of the other two or more other solutions?
    >
    > I am not sure how these programs do what they do and if it is very
    > different from one to another. Thank you for any advice on this matter.


    These programs do very, very similar things. They all follow the
    principle of putting all necessary dependencies into one big
    executable. With the only exception of optionally not bundling certain
    DLLs like the Perl DLL. In a couple of weeks, I might publish an
    article on PAR which also talks about techniques for reducing the exe
    size. Until then, I suggest you look at the PAR FAQ on par.perl.org. It
    has a FAQ on the exe size.

    As for execution speed, perlapp, perl2exe and PAR produced binaries
    should have the exact same run-time performance. Loading new modules,
    however, might be slightly (milliseconds, that is, well below the
    measurement threshold for single events) slower for PAR than for the
    alternatives. That is, however, usually a compile-time effect. On the
    other hand, PAR should be a bit slower in the start-up phase. All of
    these tools are slower in start-up than just running the .pl file with
    an installed Perl. (They all extract the bundled code to some place.)

    Other than the start-up penalty, all four solutions (PAR, perlapp,
    perl2exe, perl foo.pl) should give equal performance.

    HTH,
    Steffen Müller
    , Sep 10, 2006
    #4
    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. Bart Nessux

    Speed Comparison Perl Python & C

    Bart Nessux, Feb 29, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,215
    Dave Cole
    Jul 7, 2004
  2. Simon Wittber

    RE: Speed Comparison Perl Python & C

    Simon Wittber, Mar 3, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    396
    Simon Wittber
    Mar 3, 2004
  3. Martjack Ecommerce
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    511
    Martjack Ecommerce
    Dec 22, 2009
  4. Cal Who
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    450
    Cal Who
    Jun 9, 2010
  5. Deepu
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    213
    ccc31807
    Feb 7, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page