On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:23:21 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote: > > > > 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". > > You skipped the "based on modern Cygwin (POSIX compatibility layer) and MinGW-w64" part, that's not very fair :p
-- 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.
