On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >For example, is the fact that GCL doesn't build for us anywhere, something > >that you think we'll get passed by just trying harder? Or is it going > >to be really really hard. > > <http://axiom.axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/download.html> > > All versions are built with GCL. I do not have access to a Sparc > although GCL has run there in the past. I no longer have access > to my Zaurus although GCL has run there in the past. I do have > access to an OLPC-XO. I release Axiom every two months so I'm > likely to get it working in the next release cycle. > > GCL runs on windows although I have not spent any time on a > windows port. Waldek has, so he might have an opinion. Given > what I know about GCL internals I have every reason to believe > that it would compile using MS or Borland compilers (modulo a > few #ifdefs to pay homage to C). I don't have access to a native > C compiler for windows. > > GCL is just a (big) C program and like every other C program I've > ever used, it is <sarcasm lang="C">easily ported</scarcasm>. But > the actual fact of the matter is that it does run everywhere I've > ever tried to make it run. All it requires is the right set of > ./configure switches.
It also requires the right set of dependencies. And those themselves can have all kinds of issues.... > My collection above includes, I86-32, > I86-64, and PowerPC. > > > > > > > The GCL-devel mailing list has on average about 5-6 messages a month > > during the last couple of months, except for a bunch of messages in > > January about people trying to build GCL from cvs. > > You claim that you pass problem reports upstream but I don't see many > Sage postings to the GCL mailing list. Camm, the GCL maintainer, has > always been very responsive and effective in his replies. But, like > you, he needs good, clear, effective bug reports. We chose clisp instead of GCL long ago for a number of reasons, so there's been no reason for me to post to the gcl mailing list. > I think you'd feel the same frustrations with Python if you compiled > Python from scratch for every platform. You ship "sources" but assume > that the python language exists and is compatible, which is not likely > to be the case when 3.0 arrives. If you can assume the python language, > why can't you assume the lisp language? If you can't assume the lisp > language, why can you assume the python language? You don't know what you're talking about here. The python build-from-source ecosystem is in much better shape than the lisp one. Python has easily 100 times as many people supporting it as clisp or gcl. > Having spent a fair portion of my life porting software, I understand > the frustrations you feel. And having spent the bulk of my life using > Lisp I "get" the get-rid-of-lisp pushback. But a lot of astonishingly > good computer algebra exists in lisp (we won't discuss the reasons). > Reproducing Axiom's "million-things-of-code" in Python would be no > small task, especially since some of the experts are dead. In my opinion the best computer algebra system for research mathematics on the planet is Magma, and it is written in C. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
