Actually, I suppose there is some common overlap, namely in those packages 
which currently don't build on Windows 64 that don't have a posix layer 
requirement. Those could be useful ports for both SageMath and for Julia. 
So there is perhaps still some hope for something.

Bill.

On Thursday, 8 October 2015 12:52:04 UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 8 October 2015 12:28:36 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-10-08 12:22, Bill Hart wrote: 
>> > Currently, projects like Gap require far too much posix to make it easy 
>> > to build them any other way but with the posix layer, and then it is no 
>> > longer a native application. 
>>
>> There is one thing I don't understand in this whole discussion: what's 
>> the problem really with the POSIX layer? Why do you insist on a *native* 
>> application? Getting Sage to work properly as Cygwin/MSYS2 application 
>> would already be a great achievement, so why not aim for that? 
>>
>>
> It's very simple. Julia cannot access non-native dlls. And in fact, 
> neither can other native binaries.
>
> The Julia devs explain, "Loading and using 2 different C runtime libraries 
> (the posix cygwin dll, and the non-posix msvcrt used by mingw-w64) from 
> inside the same application is unlikely to work"
>
> Therefore there would in fact be little overlap between SageMath 
> requirements (which include posix) and Julia requirements (which exclude 
> posix).
>
> I suppose there would be some benefit in having libraries fix the 
> long->long long issues. But it's nowhere near all the way to a native 
> application. SageMath would indeed benefit. But that doesn't help me or 
> others working with native apps.
>
> Bill.
>

-- 
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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to