On Feb 15, 6:31 pm, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 7:22 pm, rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > IMHO, a native port of Sage to Windows could not be done in a week or two. > > > Perhaps a Cygwin port could, but I'm talking of a native port, where the > > > code runs directly on Windows, without any Linux virtual machines, > > > emulators or similar. > > > I see no reason to reject MinGW, Cygwin, or other libraries as part of > > a Sage system on Windows. > > Then you haven't tried to actually do this, which of course we know. > Unfortunately, even getting Maxima to work right on Cygwin with ECL
... maybe because running ECL is the wrong choice, dictated by a misguided policy about what software is politically acceptable. > was nontrivial lately because of how Juanjo had to do forking (which > he's since gotten around entirely) which does not work on Cygwin > properly. (And I say this out of sheer experience trying to get it to > work, not because I know anything about forking. Those who do are > even more emphatic about it.) > > > If you wish, I'll offer you a 20:1 bet.. If you, or someone you > know, can > > > > get a full port of Sage done inside a month, I'll pay you $2000. > > > I think that a month (160 hours X expert rate of, say, $500/hour) > > would > > do it. That is far more than $2,000. > > $500/hr? NSF's rate on MAA grants is $50/hr! I suppose the NSF doesn't have any refrigerators, dishwashers, or plumbing. Try to get a repair person to your house at $50 an hour. Although it is easy to get a PhD mathematician to your house. Just order a pizza. > I guess you should all > just ditch academia and work for a few months, cash in six figures, > and call it a year so you can work on open source software the rest of > the year :) I said an expert on windows, not open source software. > > Don't need a judge, either; Sage passes all doctests and works on > Windows without virtualization or the *Gw*s, there you go. > > Anyway, all this is hypothetical, talk of bets or whatever. There > exist people (just a few) who could actually do the Cygwin port > quickly if they worked on it *full time*, but they have judged their > time better spent elsewhere, and I don't blame them. So we agree. And the MSVC > (sp?) port would be a few orders of magnitude worse. I doubt it. If there really are bad C compilers, that might be a different situation. My own personal experience has been that I will struggle for several days on some such project, and then get help from a true expert who solves the problem in 60 seconds. Yes, there is > probably a lot of C code in some of the packages in Sage which are not > really up to standards or are heavily reliant on Gnu-specific stuff... > Dave K. has been very helpful along these lines. > > But that's what we need to include in order to get the highest-quality > *mathematics* in Sage. And that, in the end, is the point. The > notebook and Sage cell make it less and less necessary to do anything > outside the cloud anyway. My own feeling is that pieces of Sage are just not necessarily high quality. Consider all the code written in Python. Is it really the highest performance code, or is just the stuff that happens to be in Python? I could be more specific about the pieces I have looked at, but to be accurate I'd have to look at them again to make sure they hadn't been improved. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
