hi,
I am using all of those tools and the major difference is the concept
behind:
A) perl2exe never made it succsesfully for me.
B) ActiveStae perlapp I could not run wtihout ActiveStae Per . . .
(non strawberry)
C) PAR is generating some ZIP Archive containing everything. While
launch this one is unpacked to some tmp directory.
Par can encode the files and changes the file names (to some fancy
longish names).
par runs on any plattform, but have some cave eats. One trick add sth.
like this to the end of your code if the module wont be included
propperly.
sub _par_hints {
require module::name;
}
D) Cava builds an APP folder containing all files and libs needed in
"open" formats.
also the UI is perfect and it is easy to maintin a distribution. Also
you can include resources and make an installer with Cava.
In my view Cava is more structured, better file collection and more
robust - actually onyl on windows.
So I am looking forward to get Cava Also for Linux and Mac OS X :)
Alexander
Am 02.08.2010 um 22:24 schrieb Johan Vromans:
Daniel Carrera <dcarr...@gmail.com> writes:
Does Cava work better than PAR? How would you compare them? What's
the
ETA for Cava to be cross-platform?
I don't have any urgency. I am not a commercial developer with a
deadline.
Then I suggest you repeat this question in a couple of weeks when (I
assume) the Cava developer will be back from vacations.
-- Johan
