> Alternatively, one could try to see if https://github.com/container2wasm/container2wasm works to get a 64bit-based version.
Unfortunately, container2wasm will not work for image with size greater than 2GB (like SageMath). See this discussion ( https://github.com/container2wasm/container2wasm/issues/230). Also 64-bit wasm can be even slower than 32-bit. > By the way, WebAssembly-built sympy, https://www.sympy.org/en/shell.html, seems to be considerably faster. I think this is because WebAssembly-built sympy uses pyodide, which is compiled to wasm directly, so it runs almost natively in your CPU. However, SageMath-in-Browser runs code in the CPU emulated by v86. I think in order to achieve the same performance as WebAssembly-built sympy, SageMath must be compiled directly to wasm using tools like emscripten <https://emscripten.org/index.html>. But that is far more challenging than the current SageMath-in-Browser approach. On Sunday, February 15, 2026 at 2:12:16 AM UTC+8 [email protected] wrote: > Alternatively, one could try to see if > https://github.com/container2wasm/container2wasm works to get a > 64bit-based version. > > On Saturday, February 14, 2026 at 7:09:54 PM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > >> 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/e413f5b6-8896-40df-af94-0d08cca4df4cn%40googlegroups.com.
