Slashdot Mirror
MacPerl 5.6.1 Released
pudge (apple.slashdot.org editor and MacPerl Maintainer) writes "MacPerl 5.6.1r1 is the first release of MacPerl in four years. It is now based on perl 5.6.1 -- actually on the latest unreleased 5.6 sources, so MacPerl is the most advanced release of perl ever -- and support for MacPerl is now in the perl core, for both 5.6 and 5.8. MacPerl can also be built entirely with freely available software. And, like its predecessor, it runs on Mac OS X under the Classic environment. Read the announcement, and see macperldelta for details on what's changed."
I have always liked Perl on the Mac, the two seem to go hand in hand, I am glad to see continuing support
1st post?
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Perl has claimed to be platform agnostic, but has been heavily unix (and x86) centric. It's good to see opportunities to use Perl on other platforms, as it is a very useful language.
Literally, it says "Gender Donkey Cat" in Chinese. Something got lost in the translation. Just so you know.
From a troll who studied Chinese.
MacPerl may be needed for pre-X Mac OS, but what's the point of running a port of perl to a legacy environment? The "real" perl runs on Mac OS X without any porting. Why anyone would waste time and resources running it under Classic is beyond me.
It is now based on perl 5.6.1 -- actually on the latest unreleased 5.6 sources, so MacPerl is the most advanced release of perl ever
"Most advanced" is often the antithesis of "most stable". I'd be a little leery about using it until it's been hammered on a bit.
"Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." -T.S. Eliot
Highlights In MacPerl 5.6.1 shows updates include:
How relevant is this? I found the inability to fork subprocesses, and the general "anti-command-line" tendencies of applications on the Mac OS, to make Mac Perl's usefullness much diminished compared to traditional unix environments. In many respects, I think AppleScript is the more effective scripting language for the classic Mac OS, although certainly it's not as fun or easy to work with as Perl (speaking from experience someone who's worked with both.)
Does anyone out there actually use Mac Perl for major development?
MacPerl drove me nuts under the old MacOS. I had to do some perl development and I needed to use some database modules that were unstable ondr MacOS. I tried to use them under Windows using ActiveState, but there the modules were just not available. I ended up HAVING to learn to use Linux (and install) in order to get my work done.
Since OS X has perl, I do my perl development on my Mac again. It's good to see MacPerl being developed, but its usefulness has diminished -- the target audience uses an operating system that is being phased out.
t'nera semordnilap
Mac OS X is unix like right? Why doesn't perl run in a non-emulated mode?
Pedro Côrte-Real.
it's ok for Classic (OS 9) i guess. under OS X you can just use the regular Perl sources... in fact /usr/bin/perl is preinstalled.
:)
one might say that with the advent of OS 9, *MacPerl is dying
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Why do I need this? Does this offer anything that the version of perl included with Mac OS X doesn't?
Somewhere in the heavens... they are waiting.
MacPerl runs in Classic mode on OSX, a known resource hog. Now, I'm under the impression that a *nix flavor of perl would run just fine on OSX's *nix booty.
Hence I ask (serious question), is there any reason an OSX user would even consider using MacPerl over a (seemingly more native to OSX) *nix Perl??
Good lord! The most advanced Perl EVER ?? I'm running out to buy a Mac RIGHT NOW.
I mean, come on guys... I know Mac people are used to being second class citizens as far as getting the latest releases of software, but this is just... embarrassing.
Every once in a while, the Mac community gets something first, and they start crowing like I can't believe. Have some self respect, for god's sake.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
OS X ships by default with Perl. Perl 5.6.1 in fact. Built natively for Darwin.
So, unless you need the added functionality of MacPerl, I wouldn't worry about it.
Justin Dubs
Are there any plans underway to give Perl acces to Aqua, like with Perl/Tk or GTKPerl? I'd really like to be able to write perl scripts with simple, non-XFree86 GUIs on OSX, the way I can use various toolboxes on Unix to create GUIs.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Apple every so often deviates from their main OS and try to dabble in something that is just strange. Game sprockets, MkLinux, HyperCard, OpenDoc,... eventually it dies when they realize it was a useless effort.
Just another thing that they will bore of and let go.
Has anyone run examples from Learning perl 2nd edition by Oreilly in the verision of perl that is in Mac OS X? Has it worked?
This is great news. When I was writing automated backup scripts for our office macs, I turned to the old release of MacPERL after learning what a convoluted piece of garbage AppleScript was...
Congratulations to the MacPERL people
some of us are still stuck with pre g3 processors and still need to run pre osX. this is huge for us. hooray! (g'mon granny get me that g4!)
"Why not just port the OSX version to have the Mac:: modules? Why use the classic version at all? What's the point?" Etc, etc, etc. Well guess what, people, *not* *everybody* *uses* *OSX*. My little blueberry ibook would be crushed under the load of Aqua, and it hums along just fine with "classic", "old", "decript", OS9. And I use MacPerl, because I can hack around with it on road trips and write nifty stuff like "count the license plates" to keep my kids entertained. Sheesh, you'd think that there was no such thing as an old macintosh out there....
<plug>This is great news for Ethernet MP3 player
The open development team behind the SliMP3 has created one of largest Perl programs in history. We've always ensured that the software is easy to install, and supports as many platforms as possible. That means we have to do certain things like avoiding fork(), and making sure that the Time::HiRes module is available with the distribution, pre-compiled for many architectures. We also deal with the path name differences between Windows and Unix. Those are the main differences - there are about a half dozen other little things, but all in all Perl is a great language and runs well on all platforms.
Version 1.0 of our software *was* compatible with MacOS9. We dropped support for OS9 after that, due to the numerous limitations and problems with the outdated MacPerl. OSX has never been a problem, because it's just Unix and it comes with Perl 5.6.1.
However, now that MacPerl 5.6.1 is available, there is a good chance that we'll be able to get the product working on MacOS Classic again. I am starting work on it today!
Hooray for the MacPerl team!
It is now based on perl 5.6.1 -- actually on the latest unreleased 5.6 sources, so MacPerl is the most advanced release of perl ever
Surely you mean this is the most advanced release of perl ever for the Mac, as the developer's release is at 5.7.3.
OOOO O um, hey.
OOOO O
OOOO O O the apple.slashdot.org idea is dumb.
OOOO OOO
OOOOO O stop pushing it and let it die.
OOOOO O
OOO O
OOO O
OOO O K.
I have to say that I'm very disappointed in MacPerl.
MacPerl was the first tool I used to write MacOS (<10) apps, and I used it a lot to build applications written in Perl that used native Mac widgets/dialogs and did lots of cool regexp stuff (IMHO, always the biggest reason for using Perl) that would have been much slower to develop with other languages. I've been a longtime BSD user, and MacPerl was a fantastic tool under MacOS 8-9.
However - and please PLEASE development folks forgive me if I'm wrong or mischaracterizing this - as I followed the MacPerl mailing list and more and more people asked about OS X, the answer seemed to be, "that would be a huge amount of work, we're not using it, and that's just not something we're prepared to do."
That's certainly fair - I can't complain since I haven't contributed any work towards porting MacPerl to OS X. I don't know C++ and I'm not a good enought programmer to pick up Objective C quickly, which is both the reason I haven't worked on Carbonizing MacPerl or porting a version to Cocoa, as well as much of why I was using MacPerl in the first place. BUT it unfortunately removes my primary reason for using MacPerl, which was creating native apps using Perl. Of course, I can still create command-line-based apps using the standard *nix Perl that is part of MacOS X. But I can no longer use it to create native apps (to OS X; I no longer automatically launch the Classic environment, since I have the Photoshop 7 beta and the only Classic apps I use anymore are older games), which was my main reason for using MacPerl.
Again, I have no real right to complain, since I haven't done any work to fix this. But I really do wish that MacPerl's maintainers had been "on board" about migrating to the MacOS's best hope for catching up and beating the alternatives, OS X. Right now, the only alternative is OSXMacPerl 0.2, a Perl module that implements some of its important features (like DoAppleScript) but leaves out most of MacPerl's abilities to create real native Mac apps with native widgets, dialogs, etc.
I love the Mac, but I'm firmly convinced that the future is OS X, and thinking otherwise (there will be plenty of pre-OS X Macs around for a long time, but I'm talking about what we must do to advance and evolve) is just hiding your head in the sand. I'm just hoping that at some point either the current MacPerl developers (or a new group of developers) come in with enough interest to make MacPerl native to OS X. I'll still use Perl, and I'll still use Mac OS X; but it would be so nice to see them really merged, the way that MacPerl once did.
"95% of all Slashdot
An AC wrote:
;)
;)
> "so MacPerl is the most advanced release of perl ever "
>
> Why do Apple zealots always need to pomp and boast and stuff?
Hey, don't blame us Apple zealots for the words of the MacPerl zealots. Proper Apple zealots know that if they wanted to claim "most advanced release", they should have carbonized it.
As for the rest of us, maybe we boast because we finally have something worth shouting about. OS X is beautiful and powerful, yet still compassionate towards the user. It inspires happiness and hope, maybe even excitement. We finally have a viable modern alternative to hordes of beige boxes dominated by an evil monopoly.
> I remember there was an interval of time when IE for the Mac was the
> 'best ever version'. I remember when the version of Microsoft Office
> happened to be the 'newest version available.'
Um, that "Apple zealot" was Microsoft. We are not responsible for the mutterings of the Evil Empire's marketing department.
> The only reason I remember crap like this is Mac Zealots are SO
> intent on wheezing on whenever there is any slight, largely
> irrelevant 'lead' that they have taken.
So I guess this means hearing that the new iMac is the top selling computer on Amazon ever is not going to really impress you, huh?
> Is there a particular class of zealot drawn especially to the Apple line
> of computers? What disorder draws them so heartily?
You'll have to ask my friend. He's been involved with Macs for a lot longer (since 1993's "Godzilla vs. Mecha Godzilla 2"), and is much larger...
Windows: "Go talk to my friend, an 800 pound monopoly-abusing gorilla!"
Mac: "And here's my good buddy, the 66,000 ton Godzilla!"
Godzilla: Stomp!
MacPerl is way safer from exploits under Mac OS 9!
:
Only a complete idiot who knows nothing of the hundreds of exploits for Linux and BSD descendants such as Mac OS X (unix) would say such a foolish thing.
Never run Perl on Mac OS X if you want a secure web server.
The MacOS running WebStar as a server has never been exploited. Old Mac Perl is supported.
In fact in the entire securityfocus (bugtraq) database history there has never been a Mac exploited over the internet remotely.
That is why the US Army gave up on MS IIS and got a Mac with WebStar.
I am not talking about BSD derived MacOS X (which already had a couple of exploits) I am talking about Mac OS 9 and earlier.
Why is is hack proof? These reasons
1> No command shell. No shell means no way to hook or intercept the flow of control with many various shell oriented tricks found in Unix or NT
2> No Root user. All mac developers know their code is always running at root. Nothing is higher (except undocumented microkernel stufff where you pass Gary Davidians birthday into certain registers and make a special call). By always being root their is no false sense of security.
3> Pascal strings. ANSI C Strings are the number one way people exploit Linux and Wintel boxes. The mac avoids C strings historically in most of all of its OS. In fact even its roms originally used Pascal strings. As you know pascal strings are faster than C (because they have the length delimiter in the front and do not have to endlessly hunt for NULL), but the side effect is less buffer exploits.
4> Stack return address positioned in safer location than intel. Buffer exploits take advantage of loser programmers lack of string length checking and clobber the return address to run thier exploit code instead. The Mac places return address infornt of where the buffer would overrun. Much safer.
5 : Macs running Webstar have ability to only run CGI placed in correct lodirectoy cation and correctly file typed.
6> Macs never run code ever merely based on how a file is named. ",exe" suffixes mean nothing. For example the file type is 4 characters of user-invisible attributes, along wiht many other invisible attributes, but these 4 bytes cannot be set by most tool oriented utilities that work with data files. For ecxample file copy utilities preserve launchable file-types, but JPEG MPEG HTML TXT etc oriented tools are physically incapable of creating an executable file. the file type is not set to executable for hte hackers needs. In fact its even more secure than that. A mac cannot run a program unless it has TWO files. The second file is an invisible file associated with the data fork file and is called a resource fork. EVERY mac program has a resource fork file containing launch information. It needs to be present. Typically JPEG, HTML, MPEG, TXT, ZIP, C, etc are merely data files and lack resource fork files, and even if the y had them they would lack launch information. but the best part is that mac web programs and server tools do not create files with resource forks usually.. TOTAL security.
7> There are less macs, though there are huge cash prizes for craking into a MacOS based WebStar server. Less macs means less hacvker interest, butthere are millions of macs sold, and some of the most skilled programmers are well versed in systems level mac engineering and know of the cash prizes so its a moot point, but perhaps macs are never kracked because there appear to be less of them. (many macs pretend they are unix and give false headers to requests to keep up the illusion, ftp http, finger, etc).
8> MacOS source not available traditionally, except within apple, similar to Microsoft source availability to its summer interns and such, source is rare to MacOS. This makes it hard to look for programming mistakes, but I feel the restricted source access is not the main reasons the MacOS has never been remotely broken into and exploited.
Sure a fool can install freeware and shareware server tools and unsecure 3rd party addon tools for e-commerce, but a mac (MacOS 9) running WebStar is the most secure web server possible and webstar offers many services as is.
I think its quite amusing that there are over 200 or 300 known vulenerabilities in RedHat over the years and not one MacOS remote exploit hack, and I fear anYone running this carbonized swill on Mac OS X.
Carbon itself is crappy enough to contend with, sadly this new Mac perl requires apples buggy carbon. Carbon 1.0 sepc was never yet met bY apple. Apple never honored the core set of features for Carbon 1.0 yet. They are many years behind.
Stick to pure OS 9.
Is there a particular class of zealot drawn especially to the Apple line of computers?
The class with a sense of humor.
PS. In my experience Mac users are very defensive because they are always attacked on their choice (so you use a Mac, why? They're expensive, don't run much software, whine, whine). Windows users would probably start behaving the same if they were confronted with the same crap. In fora where only Mac users go, things are far more relaxed and friendly. But of course, those are mostly free of Linux and Windows zealots.
Damian's laptop runs classic (I think).
How can you do OO wizardry with a wand
having no OO mojo?
Well, I wouldn't call it crowing. Some things are just simple statements of current fact. No doubt soon enough another version of some other Perl will come out and they can say that's the most advanced Perl ever.
I get a little upset at people who think that a simple statement of fact like that is crowing.
*Shrug*
Kalen D'arrie
Sigh... While I love Mac OS X, and using /usr/bin/perl while I'm at home, I work in an office that has many Macs running Mac OS 9 with no OS X update scheduled yet, so MacPerl 5.6.1 is a much needed thing.
And really, depending on what/how you write perl, you can do a hell of a lot with MacPerl on a daily basis. (Thanks pudge!)
...end of transmission...