c0m0

If you can't in general parse a piece of perl without "running the program" as you yourself mentioned then I'm pretty sure that parsing it can definitely trigger infinite loops as perl language is definitely turing complete during run time. So your statement is a contradiction.

Actually the problem has more implications, as it's an effect of parsing the code. Any IDE:s that have advanced features that rely on parsing and analysis of the code can be caught in an infinite loop and stop responding.

The sad part is, in the general case it's impossible for the parser (or any other process overviewing it) to decide if it's actually caught in an infinite loop or not, that's why they call it undecidability.

For the people out there that's not so into CS, and does not understands it's implications. It basically means you could write a perl program that could cause an infinite loop in the interpreter (or compiler). This I would presume independant of the actual implementation of the compiler and intrepreter as that would only mean this is a bug report for the specific implementation, and not a problem with the language design.

1. This is easily solved by buying enough supply of controllers right now to last for 33 years.

2. Are you sure the non-commercial version come from and doesn't have embedded processor, and how do you know it's really good quality and not just very expensive because of low quantity production?