From: Eric H. <Ha...@sw...> - 2002-02-15 18:59:43
|
I have used both. PerlApp used to require you develop your application on = a Windows NT machine. Not sure if that is still true? I used it back in = 1999. Perl2exe does not have that limitation. I am currently using = Perl2exe on Windows 98. I use to compile Perl Win32::GUI applications = with PerlApp and I would not have to distribute any other files other than = the executable. However with Perl2exe, I have to distribute perlcrt.dll as = well for additional runtime support. This is not that big a deal though. = I just have enduser install that DLL file to the same directory as the = executable. One thing I did not like about PerlApp is that it created = subdirectories below /temp where it placed expanded files summing about = 1megabyte each for each executable you ran. Perl2exe does not need to do = this. Both PerlApp and Perl2exe allow you to compile with a special GUI = switch so the DOS console is not visible. Executable file sizes are a = little smaller with Perl2exe I found. Execution speed is similar for your = compiled programs. But perhaps the biggest drawback to PerlApp was that = you had to have either a user license or a machine license. Perl2exe does = not limit you to compiling on one machine, or by one user. I use = ActiveState Perl binary instead of Indigo Software Perl binary, but I use = Indigo Software's Perl2exe compiler on ActiveState's perl binary. Works = just fine. Indigo makes sure it works with ActiveState Perl.=20 I have successfully ran applications compiled under both compilers on = Windows OS platforms as well as the Novell Network operating system. Eric Hansen Dallas, Texas U.S.A. |