On 11 October 2016 at 15:34, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:14:02 AM UTC, John Cremona wrote: >>> >>> On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup <sh...@cs.nyu.edu> wrote: >>> > First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started programming >>> > with Fortran on punch cards in the 70s. >>> >>> Punch cards? They were a great advance on paper tape which is what >>> *I* started on. To correct a typo in your program you had to read >>> the whole tape in, make the correction, and punch out a whole new >>> tape! Cards were so much easier as you could just replace one card. >> >> >> sure, I had this at some point (1981?) too; the OS was booted from a big >> roll of plastic tape, and files and stuff >> were on paper tape... I don't recall whether it was Basic or Fortran one had >> to program it with... > > You guys were so lucky to have an actual computer!
I only had access to it on Sunday afternoons, in winter. Most of the year it was lifted (by crane) onto a ship because it belonged to Cambridge U's department of geodesy and geophysics, and they used it to map the ocean floor. And the rest of the week when it was in Cambridge the academics had it. > > I spent my first year or two programming in the 70s by using a book > I found in the garbage combined with a computer-looking > thing I built out of cardboard, and simulating everything > on paper or in my head. The rest of the week / year we worked on paper too! (But I didn't bother making a fake computer out of cardboard). > > Uphill both ways, in the snow. > >> >>> >>> That was 1970 I think.... >>> >>> > >>> > Second, a complete transition to auto tools still feels like overkill at >>> > this point. >>> > But I agree that it could come one day. >>> >>> With a lot of help (from people on this thread and for the same >>> reasons) I went through that agony with eclib. I don't regret it but >>> I would not want to do it again! >> >> >> I've done this for a couple of Sage packages (admittedly, smaller and >> simpler than NTL)... >> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> > In any case, I am almost done with all the requested changes. >>> > I will follow up with a couple of quick questions, though. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 5:09:48 PM UTC-4, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 9:09:38 PM UTC+1, François wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/10/16 01:58, Victor Shoup wrote: >>> >>> > Another issue. I'm not sure if $(MAKE) is specific to gnu make or if >>> >>> > it >>> >>> > is universal. >>> >>> > In general, I don't want to assume gnu. But I can certainly make >>> >>> > this >>> >>> > the default, >>> >>> > and provide a config variable to override. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'll have another go at this when you use >>> >>> $(MAKE) inside a makefile you are making sure >>> >>> that the make command used is the same one that >>> >>> you called on the initial makefile. >>> >>> >>> >>> As other people mentioned it enable parallel make >>> >>> to proceed nicely, and in the case where there is >>> >>> several make command installed on the system >>> >>> you avoid funny things happening. I have AIX >>> >>> system which comes with its own posix make >>> >>> command. Something like ntl probably require >>> >>> gmake (GNU make), calling AIX make in the >>> >>> middle is not a good idea. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> Perhaps the most natural solution would be to change NTL build system >>> >> so >>> >> that >>> >> it uses the standard autotools chain (autoconf/automake etc), not only >>> >> libtool. >>> >> Given that it uses very few external libraries, it ought to be an easy >>> >> task. >>> >> >>> >> Given that I am perhaps the only person in this thread who learned to >>> >> program using punch cards, >>> >> I am a dinosaur from an earlier period, yet, I look into the future :-) >>> >> >>> >> Dima >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Francois >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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+...@googlegroups.com. >>> > To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com. >>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > William (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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
