Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Julien Puydt > <julien.pu...@laposte.net> wrote: > > Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit: > >> Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in > >> Sage without including the Haskell compiler (buildable from > >> source) in Sage. And there's no way we're doing that. We already > >> have to deal with too many different programming languages, Sage > >> is already too big, it already takes too long to build, etc. > > > > What about fixing those issues? > > The issues I listed are: > > 1. Too many different programming languages -- (at least) Fortran, > C/C++, Python, Java, Lisp: > > How do you suggest "fixing" this?
That one can't be fixed since features depend on it... don't fix the features! ;-) > 2. Sage is too big: > > I posted a message about this a few days ago, pointing out, e.g., that > the jsmath image fonts are buried in the moinmoin wiki package. > Doing an audit of wasted space like this would be useful. Switching > to using setuptools instead of distutils and using "python setup.py > develop" instead of "python setup.py install" -- hence getting rid of > devel/sage/build -- would save some additional space and avoid a > constant source of confusion. Sage is too big because it wants to embed everything. It shouldn't. And before you jump at the idea : no, I'm not proposing sage to have more mandatory dependencies. I'm proposing that it could optionally not build something if it is already there. My system already has quite a few things sage wants. You might have the impression that it doesn't lead to something smaller, since the packages are still installed anyway ; but they are shared, and that's where the gain is. One python installation. One gfortran. One bzip2. Et caetera. > 3. Sage takes too long to build: > > A lot of excellent work has been done in this direction in the last > year, e.g., the support for building in parallel has improved a huge > amount, as has support for building ATLAS. If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then there would be a gain too. Let me stress again : I have some of the things it needs already, so it could just use it. Two last remarks : (1) when you want to apply a theorem, do you just check for the hypotheses then go on, or do you re-do the proof down from the axioms? (2) I don't remember who proposed to put gcc in sage, but only use it on MOSX -- that is the same idea : it's at hand if really needed, but just use the system one if available. Snark on #sagemath -- 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
