Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
2010/1/4 Jorge E. ´Sanchez Sanchez hnr...@hotmail.com: Dear William, I am so sorry to perhaps put more noise in this thread, my modem was dead and for this reason is why until today I am reading it, and I just want to share my experience with Cygwin and to tell you that since 2005 I was working very well with my Cygwin installation combining quite armoniusly both worlds of Unix and Windows mainly EPD in the last one, files were easy to share and there were'nt any scientific linux library which I cannot put into work on my Cygwin where I also use to run my fortran and C++ codes. Then in 2008 I discover SAGE in a precompiled binary for Windows and I became a fan of it, so I was very dissapointed when I could'nt run it after a failed update. I search for the possibility to install it from source on Cygwin but (I believe in a comment I found from you) it was almost impossible to do it. I try the VMware installation for a while but it seemed to me that it was not the same functionality, and as far as I could thought I could'nt understand why I should have a Cygwin (which now had deceived me for that reason) and a VMware linux at the same time in the same machine. So I decided to delete Cygwin and the VMWare and make an Ubuntu 9.04 linux partition. I have moved all my stuff just below SAGE in order to have the possibility to make all kind of calculations algebraic as well as numerical within it, I was a little unconfident with this last linux installation because in other computers I have had issues after a while with the hard disk and lost info. However I have been working succesfully during a year and a half until without thinking I accept the linux upgrade to 9.10 automatically and all that happy world came down in little pieces, because I have again troubles with the hard disk and lost all the work I have dedicated to configure my SAGE installation. The best of the Cygwin world is its reliability and windows compatibility I think the existence of a Cygwin SAGE would make me very happy again because I could trust my software to it. I *totally* understand what you mean. I think you are a fairly typical potential Sage-on-Windows user... and often typical computer users are Windows users. We definitely, definitely want to produce a Cygwin port of Sage. Keep your eyes out for it! William Have a nice 2010 year Jorge Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:13:01 -0800 Subject: Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability. From: wst...@gmail.com To: sage-support@googlegroups.com On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: William Stein wrote: On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: William Stein wrote: Unfortunately, there is no native port of Sage to Microsoft Windows (I wish there were). So you can't use it from .NET. -- William Is that situation changing? Not lately. Shame. As much as I do not like to admit it, a Windows version would dramatically increase the user base. That said, tech savvy people who are thinking of running Sage are more likely to use OS X, Linux, Solaris than the average PC user. But still, a large number of tech savvy people only use Windows. I was under the impression Microsoft were sponsoring a port, but I've not heard much about it. 2 years ago Microsoft sponsored part-time work on a port for a year. There was never a hope in hells chance with that. To get ALL of the functionality of Sage, the time is going to be several man years - probably 10 to 30 of them. A more limited subset of functionality would take less time of course. If people can run some parts of Sage, but it pops up with the occasional: Sorry, that functionality is not available in the native Windows version of Sage. Please use Linux, Solaris or Install VirtulBox on your PC and download an image from ... A limited sub set of the full functionality: 1) May be sufficient for many users. 2) Might get them wanting more, and so upgrade. Shareware software was often like that. You get some functionality free, but you paid for the rest. Well in this case, they don't pay money, but they have to pay with a bit of effort to install Linux, Solaris or VirtualBox, plus learn to use Linux/Unix. Knowing the hurdles to overcome in porting Sage to Solaris, I would imagine those hurdles are much larger to port to Windows. However, with a larger user base, perhaps you can attract more developers, so a port is easier. That appears to not be the case. After 3-4 years of waiting/trying/encouraging, I'm pretty sure the only way Sage will ever get ported to Windows is if me and Mike Hansen just do it ourselves. I'd go for the limited subset approach. The Cygwin-based port will provide all functionality, not a limited subset. As an estimate of difficulty: I'm confident Mike Hansen
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
Jaap Spies wrote: Dr. David Kirkby wrote: William Stein wrote: But that is very different from a native Windows port, which was I thought we were talking about. We are talking about porting Sage to windows. I will leave it to the lawyers to define native Windows port. Fair enough. I strongly disagree with your assertion that Cygwin would be vastly inferior to VirtualBox for Windows users.How much have you used VirtualBox or Cygwin? I've used both for hundreds of hours, and I've also listened to and watched tons of Windows users.Sage built using Cygwin would be vastly better for most Windows users than VirtualBox. -- William I've not used either very much, but of the two, I much prefer VirtualBox. Personally I was never over impressed with Cygwin, but I find Virtualbox very impressive. I've used both. If I remember correctly cygwin-0.18-alpha in the years about 1995. I loved to have a unix like environment in the Windows world. I remember compiling Sage in cygwin took centuries, as opening a file took ages :( Maybe times have changed. Looking forward to a cygwin build of Sage. VirtualBox has its own virtues. Let alone we could install Windows-whatever in VirtualBox, install cygwin and try to install Sage with it :) Has anybody tried Microsoft's SUA (Unix compatability layer on Windows)? It uses gcc as the default compiler, seems to support 64-bit... It comes preinstalled (though must be turned on) on Windows Ultimate and Enterprise versions. So I guess it's harder to create a one-click installer that will just work with Windows, but SUA support would e.g. allow a lot of universities to install Sage on their Windows boxes. I know nothing more and don't have access to a Windows box; recent thread on cython-dev and www.interix.com has some more details. -- Dag Sverre -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
Dave, it makes no sense to compare cygwin and virtualbox by Googlehits. Cygwin is just a tool to port Unix software to Windows quickly and relatively painlessly (at least the command-line software can usually be ported pretty quickly). Cygwin is also a toolchain to develop software on Windows (i.e. it has compilers, etc). Virtualbox is an emulator to run other operating systems (e.g. Linux atop WIndows, or the other way aroung). So you can just run a Linux program in your Windows box, unamended. Also, note that many parts of Sage are not developed by Sage developers, e.g. Maxima, GAP. There is little chance that these parts would be ported to Windows natively (on the other hand, e.g., GAP has a Cygwin port, that is well-supported etc). I toyed with making a native port of GAP to Windows some ten years ago. It was a highly non-trivial task that would have taken me months back then (and then I was relatively well-versed in Windows programming). So a native port of Sage would still settle for Cygwin ports of some of its modules. Dmitrii 2010/1/2 Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net: William Stein wrote: But that is very different from a native Windows port, which was I thought we were talking about. We are talking about porting Sage to windows. I will leave it to the lawyers to define native Windows port. Fair enough. I strongly disagree with your assertion that Cygwin would be vastly inferior to VirtualBox for Windows users. How much have you used VirtualBox or Cygwin? I've used both for hundreds of hours, and I've also listened to and watched tons of Windows users. Sage built using Cygwin would be vastly better for most Windows users than VirtualBox. -- William I've not used either very much, but of the two, I much prefer VirtualBox. Personally I was never over impressed with Cygwin, but I find Virtualbox very impressive. FWIW, a Google on Cywin brings up 4.8 million hits. On VirtualBox 4.2 million hits. Considering Cywin was released in 1995 and VirtualBox in 2007, it would suggest to me its a more popular tool today. dave -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
Gentoo has the ability to compile software in Microsoft's SUA. Maybe it could be useful to port sage. You can check out some docs herehttp://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/ . 2010/1/3 Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com Dave, it makes no sense to compare cygwin and virtualbox by Googlehits. Cygwin is just a tool to port Unix software to Windows quickly and relatively painlessly (at least the command-line software can usually be ported pretty quickly). Cygwin is also a toolchain to develop software on Windows (i.e. it has compilers, etc). Virtualbox is an emulator to run other operating systems (e.g. Linux atop WIndows, or the other way aroung). So you can just run a Linux program in your Windows box, unamended. Also, note that many parts of Sage are not developed by Sage developers, e.g. Maxima, GAP. There is little chance that these parts would be ported to Windows natively (on the other hand, e.g., GAP has a Cygwin port, that is well-supported etc). I toyed with making a native port of GAP to Windows some ten years ago. It was a highly non-trivial task that would have taken me months back then (and then I was relatively well-versed in Windows programming). So a native port of Sage would still settle for Cygwin ports of some of its modules. Dmitrii 2010/1/2 Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net: William Stein wrote: But that is very different from a native Windows port, which was I thought we were talking about. We are talking about porting Sage to windows. I will leave it to the lawyers to define native Windows port. Fair enough. I strongly disagree with your assertion that Cygwin would be vastly inferior to VirtualBox for Windows users.How much have you used VirtualBox or Cygwin? I've used both for hundreds of hours, and I've also listened to and watched tons of Windows users.Sage built using Cygwin would be vastly better for most Windows users than VirtualBox. -- William I've not used either very much, but of the two, I much prefer VirtualBox. Personally I was never over impressed with Cygwin, but I find Virtualbox very impressive. FWIW, a Google on Cywin brings up 4.8 million hits. On VirtualBox 4.2 million hits. Considering Cywin was released in 1995 and VirtualBox in 2007, it would suggest to me its a more popular tool today. dave -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comsage-support%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
William Stein wrote: Unfortunately, there is no native port of Sage to Microsoft Windows (I wish there were). So you can't use it from .NET. -- William Is that situation changing? I was under the impression Microsoft were sponsoring a port, but I've not heard much about it. Is this progressing well? Knowing the hurdles to overcome in porting Sage to Solaris, I would imagine those hurdles are much larger to port to Windows. However, with a larger user base, perhaps you can attract more developers, so a port is easier. To write portable code, you do really need to consider portability from the start. Much of the code in Sage was not written with that in mind. Dave -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: William Stein wrote: Unfortunately, there is no native port of Sage to Microsoft Windows (I wish there were). So you can't use it from .NET. -- William Is that situation changing? Not lately. I was under the impression Microsoft were sponsoring a port, but I've not heard much about it. 2 years ago Microsoft sponsored part-time work on a port for a year. It wasn't nearly enough to actually complete a port, though it did result in some important work getting done. That said, I greatly appreciate the support by Microsoft. Is this progressing well? Knowing the hurdles to overcome in porting Sage to Solaris, I would imagine those hurdles are much larger to port to Windows. However, with a larger user base, perhaps you can attract more developers, so a port is easier. That appears to not be the case. After 3-4 years of waiting/trying/encouraging, I'm pretty sure the only way Sage will ever get ported to Windows is if me and Mike Hansen just do it ourselves. To write portable code, you do really need to consider portability from the start. Much of the code in Sage was not written with that in mind. Indeed, much code in Sage was written by people that only use Linux, and it was written long before Sage started. Fortunately, the *foundations* of Sage -- namely Python and Cython -- are portable and cross platform. -- William -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
William Stein wrote: On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: William Stein wrote: Unfortunately, there is no native port of Sage to Microsoft Windows (I wish there were). So you can't use it from .NET. -- William Is that situation changing? Not lately. Shame. As much as I do not like to admit it, a Windows version would dramatically increase the user base. That said, tech savvy people who are thinking of running Sage are more likely to use OS X, Linux, Solaris than the average PC user. But still, a large number of tech savvy people only use Windows. I was under the impression Microsoft were sponsoring a port, but I've not heard much about it. 2 years ago Microsoft sponsored part-time work on a port for a year. There was never a hope in hells chance with that. To get ALL of the functionality of Sage, the time is going to be several man years - probably 10 to 30 of them. A more limited subset of functionality would take less time of course. If people can run some parts of Sage, but it pops up with the occasional: Sorry, that functionality is not available in the native Windows version of Sage. Please use Linux, Solaris or Install VirtulBox on your PC and download an image from ... A limited sub set of the full functionality: 1) May be sufficient for many users. 2) Might get them wanting more, and so upgrade. Shareware software was often like that. You get some functionality free, but you paid for the rest. Well in this case, they don't pay money, but they have to pay with a bit of effort to install Linux, Solaris or VirtualBox, plus learn to use Linux/Unix. Knowing the hurdles to overcome in porting Sage to Solaris, I would imagine those hurdles are much larger to port to Windows. However, with a larger user base, perhaps you can attract more developers, so a port is easier. That appears to not be the case. After 3-4 years of waiting/trying/encouraging, I'm pretty sure the only way Sage will ever get ported to Windows is if me and Mike Hansen just do it ourselves. I'd go for the limited subset approach. Dave -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: William Stein wrote: On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: William Stein wrote: Unfortunately, there is no native port of Sage to Microsoft Windows (I wish there were). So you can't use it from .NET. -- William Is that situation changing? Not lately. Shame. As much as I do not like to admit it, a Windows version would dramatically increase the user base. That said, tech savvy people who are thinking of running Sage are more likely to use OS X, Linux, Solaris than the average PC user. But still, a large number of tech savvy people only use Windows. I was under the impression Microsoft were sponsoring a port, but I've not heard much about it. 2 years ago Microsoft sponsored part-time work on a port for a year. There was never a hope in hells chance with that. To get ALL of the functionality of Sage, the time is going to be several man years - probably 10 to 30 of them. A more limited subset of functionality would take less time of course. If people can run some parts of Sage, but it pops up with the occasional: Sorry, that functionality is not available in the native Windows version of Sage. Please use Linux, Solaris or Install VirtulBox on your PC and download an image from ... A limited sub set of the full functionality: 1) May be sufficient for many users. 2) Might get them wanting more, and so upgrade. Shareware software was often like that. You get some functionality free, but you paid for the rest. Well in this case, they don't pay money, but they have to pay with a bit of effort to install Linux, Solaris or VirtualBox, plus learn to use Linux/Unix. Knowing the hurdles to overcome in porting Sage to Solaris, I would imagine those hurdles are much larger to port to Windows. However, with a larger user base, perhaps you can attract more developers, so a port is easier. That appears to not be the case. After 3-4 years of waiting/trying/encouraging, I'm pretty sure the only way Sage will ever get ported to Windows is if me and Mike Hansen just do it ourselves. I'd go for the limited subset approach. The Cygwin-based port will provide all functionality, not a limited subset. As an estimate of difficulty: I'm confident Mike Hansen and I working fulltime for one month could complete it. It would have been finished already if good people were working on it. Just to back up that claim, consider: (1) For most of 2005 and 2006, Gary Zablackis distributed a Cygwin-based version of Sage, complete with a nice automated 1-click .msi installer. Unfortunately, Gary stopped working on this in mid-2006 so it languished. Gary was exceptionally capable, in that he actually understood the internals of Cygwin1.dll, and wasn't afraid to dive in, hack stuff in there, report bugs to the Cygwin dev's. etc. Once a new version of Cygwin1.dll completeley broke robustly building Python C extensions, and Gary had a huge argument with the Cygwin devs about this (he was right about the technical issues). (2) In Jan 2007, I spent one solid week and redid a port of Sage to Cygwin, which people used for a while around then. I was motivated by an upcoming visit to Microsoft to give a talk. (3) The Cygwin port was killed around March 2007 mainly because of libSingular. More precisely I'll take responsibility -- I made a bad choice to let libSingular into Sage without the portability issues that it caused on Cygwin being resolved. (4) The Cygwin port has stayed dead for almost two years, from March 2007 until now, while much new functionality has been added to Sage, thus making the port even harder. (It's possible this was because a certain Sage developer staked out doing a Windows port as his terrain.)On the other hand, the build system and code in Sage has been made more portable and is better understood, due to porting to OS X 64-bit, Solaris, etc., so maybe the port is easier now. (5) In the meantime, Cygwin itself has certainly got much better. For example, they just did a new release that evidently greatly improves their fork system call, which is highly relevant for Sage. - For a full native MSVC-based port, a limited subset of functionality is perhaps more realistic, and might be the approach we're already following. However, note that creating a version of Sage with limited functionality is actually very, very difficult, and requires exceptional knowledge of Sage, Python/Cython programming, and a wide range of areas of advanced mathematics. The different parts of mathematics are actually highly interrelated. -- William -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
William Stein wrote: The Cygwin-based port will provide all functionality, not a limited subset. As an estimate of difficulty: I'm confident Mike Hansen and I working fulltime for one month could complete it. It would have been finished already if good people were working on it. Just to back up that claim, consider: But that is very different from a native Windows port, which was I thought we were talking about. A Cygwin port is a much simpler task. I'm not saying its an easy task, but it's a hell of a lot easier than a native Windows application, like Word, Powerpoint, Mathematica, MATLAB or Maple. I thought that was what you meant by a native application. That was why I thought it was going to take many man years. Cygwin seems a vastly inferior environment to VirtualBox. It certainly would not be my choice if I wanted to run Sage under Windows. But perhaps it offers some advantages over VirtualBox, like its more closely linked to Windows. Dave -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: William Stein wrote: The Cygwin-based port will provide all functionality, not a limited subset. As an estimate of difficulty: I'm confident Mike Hansen and I working fulltime for one month could complete it. It would have been finished already if good people were working on it. Just to back up that claim, consider: But that is very different from a native Windows port, which was I thought we were talking about. We are talking about porting Sage to windows. I will leave it to the lawyers to define native Windows port. Most users could care less. They know it when they use it. I bet 99.9% of Windows users couldn't tell the difference between installing and running a Sage install built with GCC that links in Cygwin1.dll and one built with MSVC. I bet 100% of users can tell the difference between installing and running Sage built into a VirtualBox machine versus one built using Cygwin or MSVC. A Cygwin port is a much simpler task. I'm not saying its an easy task, but it's a hell of a lot easier than a native Windows application, like Word, Powerpoint, Mathematica, MATLAB or Maple. I thought that was what you meant by a native application. That was why I thought it was going to take many man years. Cygwin seems a vastly inferior environment to VirtualBox. It certainly would not be my choice if I wanted to run Sage under Windows. But perhaps it offers some advantages over VirtualBox, like its more closely linked to Windows. I strongly disagree with your assertion that Cygwin would be vastly inferior to VirtualBox for Windows users.How much have you used VirtualBox or Cygwin? I've used both for hundreds of hours, and I've also listened to and watched tons of Windows users.Sage built using Cygwin would be vastly better for most Windows users than VirtualBox. -- William -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
William Stein wrote: But that is very different from a native Windows port, which was I thought we were talking about. We are talking about porting Sage to windows. I will leave it to the lawyers to define native Windows port. Fair enough. I strongly disagree with your assertion that Cygwin would be vastly inferior to VirtualBox for Windows users.How much have you used VirtualBox or Cygwin? I've used both for hundreds of hours, and I've also listened to and watched tons of Windows users.Sage built using Cygwin would be vastly better for most Windows users than VirtualBox. -- William I've not used either very much, but of the two, I much prefer VirtualBox. Personally I was never over impressed with Cygwin, but I find Virtualbox very impressive. FWIW, a Google on Cywin brings up 4.8 million hits. On VirtualBox 4.2 million hits. Considering Cywin was released in 1995 and VirtualBox in 2007, it would suggest to me its a more popular tool today. dave -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: FWIW, a Google on Cywin brings up 4.8 million hits. On VirtualBox 4.2 million hits. Considering Cywin was released in 1995 and VirtualBox in 2007, it would suggest to me its a more popular tool today. VirtualBox has all the drawbacks of a virtual machine. Some of the main ones being that it is slow to start up, has large disk and memory usage, and has relatively poor integration with the host operating system's filesystem by default. As William said, a Cygwin version of Sage would be far closer to a native application than using it through VirtualBox. --Mike -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
Dr. David Kirkby wrote: William Stein wrote: But that is very different from a native Windows port, which was I thought we were talking about. We are talking about porting Sage to windows. I will leave it to the lawyers to define native Windows port. Fair enough. I strongly disagree with your assertion that Cygwin would be vastly inferior to VirtualBox for Windows users.How much have you used VirtualBox or Cygwin? I've used both for hundreds of hours, and I've also listened to and watched tons of Windows users.Sage built using Cygwin would be vastly better for most Windows users than VirtualBox. -- William I've not used either very much, but of the two, I much prefer VirtualBox. Personally I was never over impressed with Cygwin, but I find Virtualbox very impressive. I've used both. If I remember correctly cygwin-0.18-alpha in the years about 1995. I loved to have a unix like environment in the Windows world. I remember compiling Sage in cygwin took centuries, as opening a file took ages :( Maybe times have changed. Looking forward to a cygwin build of Sage. VirtualBox has its own virtues. Let alone we could install Windows-whatever in VirtualBox, install cygwin and try to install Sage with it :) Jaap -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
Mike Hansen wrote: On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: FWIW, a Google on Cywin brings up 4.8 million hits. On VirtualBox 4.2 million hits. Considering Cywin was released in 1995 and VirtualBox in 2007, it would suggest to me its a more popular tool today. VirtualBox has all the drawbacks of a virtual machine. Some of the main ones being that it is slow to start up, has large disk and memory usage, and has relatively poor integration with the host operating system's filesystem by default. As William said, a Cygwin version of Sage would be far closer to a native application than using it through VirtualBox. --Mike I can understand some of the drawbacks of VirtualBox. This computer has 8 cores at 3.333 GHz, 12 GB RAM and 2.5 TB disk (all mirrored). VirutalBox is not much of a drain on the resources. I suppose I've always approached Cywin in the opposite direction to Windows users. They are going to see it as a way of running Sage on a platform (Windows) familiar to them. I've always considered Cygwin as a rather poor Unix environment compared to a real Unix computer. Perhaps that's why I see Cywgin less favorably than others. Dave -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Mike Hansen wrote: On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: FWIW, a Google on Cywin brings up 4.8 million hits. On VirtualBox 4.2 million hits. Considering Cywin was released in 1995 and VirtualBox in 2007, it would suggest to me its a more popular tool today. VirtualBox has all the drawbacks of a virtual machine. Some of the main ones being that it is slow to start up, has large disk and memory usage, and has relatively poor integration with the host operating system's filesystem by default. As William said, a Cygwin version of Sage would be far closer to a native application than using it through VirtualBox. --Mike I can understand some of the drawbacks of VirtualBox. This computer has 8 cores at 3.333 GHz, 12 GB RAM and 2.5 TB disk (all mirrored). VirutalBox is not much of a drain on the resources. I suppose I've always approached Cywin in the opposite direction to Windows users. They are going to see it as a way of running Sage on a platform (Windows) familiar to them. I've always considered Cygwin as a rather poor Unix environment compared to a real Unix computer. Ok, for me it was a way to cope with windos (typo, but I will not correct it) For the elder people among us: cygwin relates to the Whitesmiths C-compiler long ago. I could port program like 'ed' to CPM, just for the fun. Or the wish to have a UNIX-like environment on that CPM machine. Laugh :) I really wish Cygwin will give me what I want in Windows whatever version. Perhaps that's why I see Cywgin less favorably than others. Dave -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
Hi there, I have a C# (4.0) program which, at some point, needs to calculate partial derivatives of arbitrary order of some functions. To do this the old fashioned way (loops and the like) has turned into horror code and a nightmare to test. To do it numerically doesn't make the code much easier to read and follow either and, in addition, it would introduce numerical errors that would make it impossible for my program to give the results predicted theoretically. So, I'm out there after a symbolic (partial) differentiation engine/ library that I could interop with from my program roughly as follows: - I could pass to the engine the function's definition (in some format) as well as the differential multiindex (in some other format). - The engine would return the definition of the partial derivative (as per the multiindex) in some format. I'd have to deal with parsing/formating the mathematical function, but I think that would be a minor thing to do compared to coding the entire partial differentiation logic myself. So, during my search, I've come across SAGE and have found out that it does partial derivatives; it seems great from what I've seen in the docs and examples, but I have no idea if one can invoke SAGE functions from a .NET language. Is this possible and, if yes, could you please explain how this can be done or point me in the right direction? Thank you very much in advance, dfg -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-support] SAGE and .NET interoperability.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 2:01 PM, dfg d.figueiras.gar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi there, I have a C# (4.0) program which, at some point, needs to calculate partial derivatives of arbitrary order of some functions. To do this the old fashioned way (loops and the like) has turned into horror code and a nightmare to test. To do it numerically doesn't make the code much easier to read and follow either and, in addition, it would introduce numerical errors that would make it impossible for my program to give the results predicted theoretically. So, I'm out there after a symbolic (partial) differentiation engine/ library that I could interop with from my program roughly as follows: - I could pass to the engine the function's definition (in some format) as well as the differential multiindex (in some other format). - The engine would return the definition of the partial derivative (as per the multiindex) in some format. I'd have to deal with parsing/formating the mathematical function, but I think that would be a minor thing to do compared to coding the entire partial differentiation logic myself. So, during my search, I've come across SAGE and have found out that it does partial derivatives; it seems great from what I've seen in the docs and examples, but I have no idea if one can invoke SAGE functions from a .NET language. Unfortunately, there is no native port of Sage to Microsoft Windows (I wish there were). So you can't use it from .NET. -- William Is this possible and, if yes, could you please explain how this can be done or point me in the right direction? Thank you very much in advance, dfg -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
