Matt Herdon wrote:
>  Frankly, the numbers don't currently add up for us to do this.

Which numbers are you referring to?


>  Not least of which is the huge issue of effectively developing a
>  variant of Perl that would work on .NET.  We've worked with Microsoft
>  and developed of both PerlNET and PerlASPX as highly compatible ways
>  of taking Perl code to .NET.
>  Ultimately, taking Perl truly to .NET would likely break
>  compatibility with much of CPAN modules (the CLR and its security
>  imposes requirements that prevent Perl from working naturally). Hence
>  the most viable solution is probably to create a Perl-like language
>  (P#?) that breaks away from CPAN -- and consequently wouldn't
>  actually be Perl any longer by most people's reckoning.

Have you tried talking to Perl people, such as Larry Wall, Randall Schwartz, and
Tom Christiansen?


>  ActiveState could provide tools for such a language, but is not in
>  the business of creating new languages.

ActiveState might want to consider getting involved, as you do have a stake in
the outcome.


Combining the above two ideas, perhaps .NET compatibility could be a feature of
Perl 6.


>  In the meanwhile PerlNET is the best way to take Perl code to .NET,
>  and it's part of the PDK. PDK is integrated with Visual Perl. Both
>  hold compatibility with Perl to be most important.

For now, I'll use Perl for LAMP and C# for .NET.


David

_______________________________________________
VisualPerl-discuss mailing list
VisualPerl-discuss@[...].com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs