Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
Subject: Re: Compiled perl scripts?
Message-ID: <5359:Mar701:28:2991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 91 01:28:29 GMT
References: <9103060939.AA07794@shum.huji.ac.il> <124823@uunet.UU.NET>
Organization: IR
Lines: 15

In article <124823@uunet.UU.NET> rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) writes:
> YES! Please don't fall into the trap tha TeX and emacs did.
> Undumping is a real pain in the ass. At least in emacs it makes
> sense, because there is only one copy undumped.

Please distinguish between INITeX's \dump and the checkpointing provided
by certain UNIX implementations. The former makes perfect sense and is
always worthwhile. The latter is only occasionally useful.

It is a shame that perl and emacs aren't nearly as flexible as TeX. As I
suggested to Larry many months ago, perl should have a good enough idea
of its internal state that it can pass that entire state to another perl
process; saving the state in a file would do the trick.

---Dan