This is cool! Thanks for your work. Just as shot in the dark: perhaps the 32-bit version of archlinux allows to install all up-to-date sage dependencies. If that's the case, you could just build sage using `pip install .`, which is then non-editable.
@others: what do you think about adding this to the website as "Try SageMath", so that potential users can see if they like sage enough to install it on their PC? On Saturday, February 14, 2026 at 3:28:10 PM UTC+1 parisse wrote: > Thanks for the confirmation. > It’s a fascinating technical milestone, but if we are looking to resources > conservation, this is clearly not the right direction... > > On Saturday, February 14, 2026 at 1:36:39 PM UTC+1 [email protected] > wrote: > >> SageMath-in-Browser is about 2 orders of magnitude slower than native >> sage code. >> I ran the following bench mark: >> 'from sage.misc.benchmark import *' >> '_ = benchmark()' >> >> Output of SageMath-in-Browser: >> [image: benchmark.png] >> Output of native sage: >> [image: bench_native.png] >> On Saturday, February 14, 2026 at 4:55:39 PM UTC+8 Georgi Guninski wrote: >> >>> > I don't know the expected performance penalty. >>> >>> To measure the time, create `file.sage` with fast code. >>> In bash run: time sage file.sage # for native sage >>> and: time emulated_sage file.sage #for JS sage >>> >>> To benchmark inside sage, one possibility is: >>> sage: timeit("code") >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/f34f64ef-a1cf-4f40-99b6-61a4fe8520aen%40googlegroups.com.
