Julien Puydt <julien.pu...@laposte.net> writes: > What monolithic certainly means is that it's harder to package, harder > to port and bigger to install. > > In some way, sage isn't that modular : here and there, things are > hardcoded which makes the modules not-really-independent, and in an > implicit way, so you only know when you start trying to move things > around. > > As an example of such situations, I submitted this very morning : > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12627 > and yesterday: > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12623 > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12624 > > I prefer working upstream rather than in a distribution, on which other > distributions will have to work in their turn. > > Sage itself should be flexible enough to be installed on any system.
Right, all of that is true. I just didn't want to give the impression that I thought that Sage was not at all modular. It is, to some extent. At least we don't ship a giant lump of source code that's all pasted together from various component programs. We have some kind of a package-based building system, and that's a start. -Keshav ---- Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net ! -- 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
