At 23:23 15/11/2000 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
>> I know what you mean but this is MicroPerl, not Perl. I don't know how much
>> difference it makes, but it's certainly smaller. I'm afraid I can't help
>> with embedding it though. I like the idea, not just for rewrites (I'm quite
>> happy with mod_rewrite most of the time) but for all the conf stuff. It
>> doesn't have dynaloader, but you could still do things like read conf from
>> a flat file db or that sort of thing.
>
>Hacking down the size of the code is good, but now when it comes down to
>hacking down features, and features must go if you are to shrink perl. Ok
>so the fullsize language is a ~350 K addon to apache, for that we get all
>the good stuff like superoptimising compiler, that is very smart about
>figuring out 'smart' code. If you really want to go that way, PHP4
>probably one of the better shots you have.
I know all that about Perl, and about PHP (which I have no idea why you
mention here), that's not the point, at least not the one I had in mind. I
was thinking of using a smaller, less powerful Perl in the ***front-end***
to replace other modules such as mod_macro and mod_rewrite. This is nothing
about content generation, but all about all the rest. There size is
limited, and it would be cool to be able to use microperl (or nanoperl, I
don't remember if it eventually came out) for many small things there.
-- robin b.
Critic, n.: A person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries
to please him.
