• code hiding
• "speeding up" by "compilation"
• bundling for single-file installation and sharing

But instead of making it clear that the first two were bogus claims, they continued to take $99 from unsuspecting souls. This borders on outright lack of ethics, as far I am concerned.

So, mostly on principle, I must continue to urge people to please stop recommending perl2exe. Use PAR.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

Yeah. If you put it like this I agree completely. The whole problem I have with your post is that you blame Indigostar for the first two. They did not make it clear enough that the 1st is not real (but they never claimed it is), and they do say the result will "run at about the same speed".

You should not hold them responsible for someone elses faults. IMO of course.

You are right that with PAR being available there is no real reason to use Perl2exe anymore. It was a valuable tool (though I did not use it myself. I use PerlApp and PerlCtrl) but now there is an opensource replacement.

Anyway ... if someone asks me how to "covert a Perl script into an executable" I will mention PAR, PerlApp and perl2exe. It's his duty to choose, not mine. All I can do for him is to tell him that these three do the same thing just a little bit differently.

Jenda

Anyone who reads the docs of can see that perl2exe does not claim the first 2. It doesn't say it's hiding the code nor it claims it's speeding up the things.

It DOES claim that you won't provide source code with the exe-distribution. This is not true as we all have read. Which is a lack of ethics, i agree.

But i still don't understand why anyone couldn't recommend perl2exe for the functionality it DOES provide.

Please, don't fight the windmills sir Don Quixote :-)

Regarding your second point: PAR's zipping of files is not presented as anything other than packing several files together in a single file for convenience in delivery. It is not held out as meant for hiding anything. Using XOR (so-called) encryption only serves to obscure the source. It is a weak attempt at source code encryption, having nothing at all to do with bundling files together into a single distribution file.

I think that that distinction is central to the "problem".

yours,
Michael

Neither "XOR" nor "encryption" may be found in the perl2exe docs. It's just something you may find out while trying to break into the EXE. You are right that PAR is more clear about what is it doing, perl2exe doesn't say pretty much anything about what it does.

IndigoStar says: "Perl2Exe is a command line utility for converting Perl scripts to executable files.
This allows you to create stand alone programs in perl that do not require the perl interpreter. You can also ship the executable file without having to ship your perl source code." They do not even mention "compilation" on the page. (They do use the word a few times in the docs though.)

IMO they did not mean the XOR as a means of real encryption, but just to prevent the text to be seen in the EXE and found by normal "Find in Files". Just a means to prevent the code from people that would have no use for it anyway.

Jenda

But when they say "You can also ship the executable file without having to ship your perl source code.", doesn't that sound a lot like "Hey, no one will be able to get at your source!"? It sure seems as if they're trying, at least, to imply that your source will be safe.

kelan

---

Perl6 Grammar Student

Howdy!

All the same, for better or worse, whether deliberate or not, PAR is quite a bit more transparent in what and how it is doing what it does. IndigoStar is not being as clear as they could be in exactly what they are and are not claiming perl2exe actually does.

I'll grant that this particular horse may well be dead by now. The twitch just seen may have been a simple response of an object to being kicked.

yours,
Michael