I would also add that even if Python and bash (or is it POSIX shell) were equally expressive, using the same language for the build system as the main library is a significant improvement from a readability/potential contributor angle. In particular shell is a particularly dangerous language to only half-know and write something that works just for you (how many people instinctively think to write "x$var" = "xYes" ...)
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:37 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Volker Braun <vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In practice Python is one of the non-specialist-maths parts that has a >> decent build system, so building it isn't hard either way. > > I agree. I talked with Andrew about this and he convinced me that > making Python 2.6 a build dependency is a good idea. > For the Sage-supported OS's for which Python 2.6+ isn't trivial to > install (which?), we can provide instructions so that people can build > Python 2.6 (which is pretty easy). > > Andrew's main argument is that there is strong interesting in writing > a nontrivial new build system that solves our unique set of problems > with Sage (since no existing build system does). Doing this would be > far too painful using shell, but very reasonable using python 2.6. > Also, most existing *supported* OS's (e.g., Ubuntu 12.04, but not > 8.04) include python 2.6 by default. > > I think there's more than sufficient programming talent (between > Andrew, Volker, etc.) to write a new build system; the main problem is > knowing exactly what problems it should solve, and what the > constraints should be. With almost 9 years of experience now, we have > the data to come up with the right thing. Despite its shortcomings, > already the current build system is the easiest way for certain people > -- who don't use Sage -- to get certain software (as I'm often told). > It's natural in light of the re-organization that happened during the > git transition for us to move on to re-doing the build system. > Allowing it to be written in Python 2.6+ would make it potentially > much more useful. > > -- William > >> >> On Friday, January 10, 2014 1:04:09 AM UTC-10, mmarco wrote: >>> >>> So we would use python to run the buildiing scripts for the sage >>> components... including python itself? >> >> -- >> 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/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > William Stein > Professor of Mathematics > University of Washington > http://wstein.org > > -- > 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
