R
robic0
I know there's some folks who hang their hat on Perl.
That notwithstanding, and without criticism to them,
given the extremely *poor* documentation of Perl and,
and. Have to stop the sentence because it worms to
infinity, not conducive to English.
I find it incredible to read some recent posts where
actual C pointers are somehow analogous to a Perl
construct. There is *nothing* available in Perl scripts
except pseudo C. There is *no* C, ie: addresses or
pointer arithmatic you can see, do, or say in Perl !!
The core of Perl is compiled. That is the end of contact
with Perl's core C code!! After that its an interfaced,
pseudo language thats provided to Perl programmers.
You have zero (0) control of the internals of Perl after that,
only to the extent of which is provided by such.
When you write Perl scripts, your so far away from C and the
operating system, you can't see!
After Perl is compiled there is not interaction with it, it
exists as a binary. There is no construct in Perl to alter
dynamic pointers in the C Perl core! Even if you wanted
to increment an address from a script, and it passed you the
(current) virtual memory location, the indirection would be
a killer! The time involved would be prohibitive. Perhaps
if there were pseudo C-like primitives in the native Perl
language, it would be feasable. It would involve multiple
indirection though. But what "++" construct from Perl?
How would that crash the machine, let me count the ways.
Boundries don't exists in the Perl population like it does
in C/C++. To let a Perl script control addressing would be
a nightmare!
Thats why they don't allow that shit!
If there's anybody who reads this who thinks otherwise
just post a follow. Otherwise *Perl* does not and will
never (because of the history off psudo languages) allow
access to and alteration of C core's.
I'm writing this because of the recent avalance of bullshit
on this subject by Abgail and Sunan and others on a single subject.
I'm ready to go to the mat on this one ...
-robic
That notwithstanding, and without criticism to them,
given the extremely *poor* documentation of Perl and,
and. Have to stop the sentence because it worms to
infinity, not conducive to English.
I find it incredible to read some recent posts where
actual C pointers are somehow analogous to a Perl
construct. There is *nothing* available in Perl scripts
except pseudo C. There is *no* C, ie: addresses or
pointer arithmatic you can see, do, or say in Perl !!
The core of Perl is compiled. That is the end of contact
with Perl's core C code!! After that its an interfaced,
pseudo language thats provided to Perl programmers.
You have zero (0) control of the internals of Perl after that,
only to the extent of which is provided by such.
When you write Perl scripts, your so far away from C and the
operating system, you can't see!
After Perl is compiled there is not interaction with it, it
exists as a binary. There is no construct in Perl to alter
dynamic pointers in the C Perl core! Even if you wanted
to increment an address from a script, and it passed you the
(current) virtual memory location, the indirection would be
a killer! The time involved would be prohibitive. Perhaps
if there were pseudo C-like primitives in the native Perl
language, it would be feasable. It would involve multiple
indirection though. But what "++" construct from Perl?
How would that crash the machine, let me count the ways.
Boundries don't exists in the Perl population like it does
in C/C++. To let a Perl script control addressing would be
a nightmare!
Thats why they don't allow that shit!
If there's anybody who reads this who thinks otherwise
just post a follow. Otherwise *Perl* does not and will
never (because of the history off psudo languages) allow
access to and alteration of C core's.
I'm writing this because of the recent avalance of bullshit
on this subject by Abgail and Sunan and others on a single subject.
I'm ready to go to the mat on this one ...
-robic
