On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:15:14 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier than > porting using Cygwin? Because the latter is already hard enough. >
Cygwin is personally of no use to me (native applications like Julia can't work with it). I don't think I've ever downloaded a Sage Cygwin binary. For one, it's bloated and too slow. Cygwin in not considered a native environment by serious Windows developers. It's a Linux on Windows, nothing more. It doesn't even try to play nice with native applications or the Windows ABI. The main reason for the existence of the MSYS2 project in their own words is "better interoperability with native Windows software". It also has a proper package manager. It's really, really fast. It has a posix layer. It has proper Windows exception handling (including zero overhead exceptions) and supports a couple of different threading models. Basically it's an extremely high quality piece of software engineering. > I can the main "elephant in the room" is the POSIX layer. Many pieces of > Sage assume some kind of POSIX environment. > Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment, so I'm not sure I understand why this is an "elephant in the room". Bill. > > Jeroen. > -- 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.
