Re: [sage-devel] Re: threejs

2015-10-07 Thread Thierry Dumont
Le 07/10/2015 08:42, kcrisman a écrit : > > > > MMMhhh, interesting! > > Do you think it would be possible to replace jmol by jsmol in sage? > or keep both and choose which on to use? > > > This is already possible! In the notebook - thanks to tons of work by > Jonathan and Vol

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Nauty vs SageMath speed comparisons?

2015-10-07 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2015-10-07 07:49, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: Yes, there was. However his statement was very vague, it was not clear what he really meant. I don't think that anybody ever asked for further clarification. I think that somebody did, but I am not sure. I don't see any evidence of that. I don't thin

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Nauty vs SageMath speed comparisons?

2015-10-07 Thread Jori Mäntysalo
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: I don't see any evidence of that. I don't think that he was asked further clarification. Given that you already communicated with him for #14110, maybe you could ask? But I know a little about programming, nothing about copyright laws or psychology!

Re: [sage-devel] Re: threejs

2015-10-07 Thread mmarco
I think it is already the default way to show 3d graphics in the notebook in the last versions. Isn't it? El miércoles, 7 de octubre de 2015, 9:28:32 (UTC+2), tdumont escribió: > > Le 07/10/2015 08:42, kcrisman a écrit : > > > > > > > MMMhhh, interesting! > > > > Do you think it

Re: [sage-devel] el capitan

2015-10-07 Thread Francois Bissey
Yes R need to be checked over but it will have to be more elaborate than the ad hoc things I put for the others. R also suffers from http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18254 on OS X 10.11. The fix was only applied on 10.10 and I think that was not well thought out. It won’t get better without somethin

[sage-devel] Re: Figuring out imports required when moving from a .sage to a .py file?

2015-10-07 Thread Simon King
Hi Tom! In addition to Travis' reply: On 2015-10-06, Tom Kitchen wrote: > I have recently installed sage from source and am trying to implement > fourier transforms. I wrote a piece of sage code which does the job for > some function f. > > > var('t', 'k','x','a') As much as I know, just doi

[sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
HI all, William Stein recently bemoaned the fact that SageMath currently only runs natively on some brands of Linux, and not natively on the latest Windows or OSX (that is to say nothing of BSD). [1] Until recently, a port of SageMath to Windows has seemed like a pipe dream. However, things ha

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier than porting using Cygwin? Because the latter is already hard enough. I can the main "elephant in the room" is the POSIX layer. Many pieces of Sage assume some kind of POSIX environment. Jeroen. -- You received this message bec

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Francesco Biscani
Some random thoughts: - I am not so convinced the strategy of automatic long -> long long patching is actually feasible, I think in practice this is gonna be a big can of worms. Pushing upstream to fix their code is a much better long-term solution IMO (and I'd rather have nothing to do with proje

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
As far as I remember, apart from the lack of POSIX compatibility on Windows/MSYS, the main obstacle to "natively" compile Sage on Windows 64 were: * PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an experimental branch fixing this: http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/archives/pari-d

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
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 wit

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:18:02 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > As far as I remember, apart from the lack of POSIX compatibility on > Windows/MSYS, the main obstacle to "natively" compile Sage on Windows 64 > were: > Just to clarify, I'm not talking about MSYS. That's a different thi

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
Perhaps I should also say that our long term plans for the Julia project I mentioned definitely include Gap and Singular, so we will be investing time and expertise into solving any issues with these, I am sure. It's a long term strategy for sure, but not one that is going to disappear overnigh

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote: Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment, so I'm not sure I understand why this is an "elephant in the room". It's an elephant in the room because your original post completely seems to ignore any possible problems with the POSIX layer, while the POSIX la

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
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. >> > > C

Re: [sage-devel] Re: threejs

2015-10-07 Thread kcrisman
> I think it is already the default way to show 3d graphics in the notebook > in the last versions. Isn't it? > > Correct. But I think he means how to use it from the *command line* - yes? I wouldn't know about this; one would have to autolaunch a browser, I guess, and other annoyances, not

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Francesco Biscani
> > >> * PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an >> experimental branch fixing this: >> http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/archives/pari-dev-1505/msg00021.html >> > > I am using Pari (not GP) today on Windows 64. It was minimal effort on my > part to do so. I am not using a s

[sage-devel] Re: Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread kcrisman
> William Stein recently bemoaned the fact that SageMath currently only runs > natively on some brands of Linux, and not natively on the latest Windows or > OSX (that is to say nothing of BSD). [1] > > Sage works on FreeBSD, or did recently, anyway; I haven't heard anything recently. See

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:35:36 PM UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > >>> * PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an >>> experimental branch fixing this: >>> http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/archives/pari-dev-1505/msg00021.html >>> >> >> I am using Pari (not GP) today

[sage-devel] el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread William Stein
Hi, We need to post a statement on the Sagemath.org website about the El Capitan os x 10.11 situation, since I'm getting (or will be getting) emails "left and right" from people freaking out about this. Here's one answer -- how could it be reworded to be right? --- Hi, As far as I know, there is

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:38:00 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > Some random thoughts: > > - I am not so convinced the strategy of automatic long -> long long > patching is actually feasible, I think in practice this is gonna be a big > can of worms. Pushing upstream to fix their code is a mu

Re: [sage-devel] el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread David Roe
Do you want to mention the possibility of disabling system integrity protection, or are you purposefully avoiding that option? David On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:38 PM, William Stein wrote: > Hi, > > We need to post a statement on the Sagemath.org website about the El > Capitan os x 10.11 situation

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:01 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote: > > Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment, so I'm not sure I understand > > why this is an "elephant in the room". > > It's an elephant in the room because your original post complet

[sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread William Stein
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, David Roe wrote: > Do you want to mention the possibility of disabling system integrity > protection, or are you purposefully avoiding that option? > David > To what extent does it actually really work? To what extent? I've got conflicting reports. I think we s

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:58 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > 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

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Francesco Biscani
> > I agree that's better if they will allow it. But I'm not sure some of the > things SageMath depends on are even still maintained, let alone do all > projects have the resources to keep maintaining such things, which is > eventually what they get asked to do. Moreover, not all developers feel >

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:37:41 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:35:36 PM UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: >> >> * PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an experimental branch fixing this: http://pari.math.u-bordea

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2015-10-07 18:50, Bill Hart wrote: On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:01 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote: > Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment, so I'm not sure I understand > why this is an "elephant in the room". It's an elepha

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:56:47 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > I agree that's better if they will allow it. But I'm not sure some of the >> things SageMath depends on are even still maintained, let alone do all >> projects have the resources to keep maintaining such things, which is >> eve

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread David Roe
The only reports I've seen, on https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/OBv5x1v3_6M, have been positive. What conflicting reports have you received? I haven't tried it myself; I'm still running 10.9. Here's a summary for how to disable it: 1. Reboot, holding down Cmd-R to start in Rec

[sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread William Stein
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, David Roe wrote: > The only reports I've seen, on > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/OBv5x1v3_6M, have been > positive. What conflicting reports have you received? > > > I think Tom Judson said it doesn't work. > > I haven't tried it myself; I'

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Francesco Biscani
PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is not guaranteed and not enforceable by PARI (as it's up to GMP to decide what exactly an mp_limb_t is). On 7 October 2015 at 19:03, Bill Hart wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:37:41 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >>

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:11:35 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2015-10-07 18:50, Bill Hart wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:01 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > > > On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote: > > > Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment,

[sage-devel] Re: Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 07:35:22 UTC-7, Bill Hart wrote: > > HI all, > > William Stein recently bemoaned the fact that SageMath currently only runs > natively on some brands of Linux, and not natively on the latest Windows or > OSX (that is to say nothing of BSD). [1] > > Until recently, a

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
Actually, now I'm not even sure I understand what x32 is. I looked it up and found this page and found considerable disagreement on what it is: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7635013/difference-between-x86-x32-and-x64-architectures I think I'll give it a miss for a while. Bill. On Wednesd

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2015-10-07 19:31, David Roe wrote: In OS X 10.11, Apple changed the operating system to no longer allow modification of certain system folders, even when logged in as root. Why would Sage need modification to system folders? Sage can be compiled as an ordinary user, so I don't see how this

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread David Roe
I'm confused by that as well, but apparently some people have succeeded at building Sage after making this change. Maybe there are other ways that disabling SIP affects Sage's build. I was trying to describe the reasons that users might hesitate to adapt this workaround. David On Wed, Oct 7, 201

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:48:54 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is not > guaranteed and not enforceable by PARI (as it's up to GMP to decide what > exactly an mp_limb_t is). > I think I understand now. I was misled by the per

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Francesco Biscani
Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints but the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed to improve performance for pointer-heavy workloads that do not need to allocate much RAM but still benefit from the 64 bit ints. On 7 October 2015 at 19:54, Bill Hart

[sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread William Stein
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, David Roe wrote: > I'm confused by that as well, but apparently some people have succeeded at > building Sage after making this change. Maybe there are other ways that > disabling SIP affects Sage's build. I was trying to describe the reasons > that users might he

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Francesco Biscani
I think in FLINT you also have the issue that you are using tagged pointers (last time I checked anyway). On 7 October 2015 at 20:03, Bill Hart wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:48:54 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: >> >> PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is n

[sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread William Stein
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Thomas Judson wrote: > I understand the problem a bit better now, but I haven’t tried disabling > the system integrity protection yet. > > Oh good. I thought you had. Very good to know disability sip works. > Tom > > > On Oct 7, 2015, at 12:38 PM, William Stein

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 11:00:14 UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2015-10-07 19:31, David Roe wrote: > > In OS X 10.11, Apple changed the operating system to no longer allow > > modification of certain system folders, even when logged in as root. > > Why would Sage need modification to s

[sage-devel] Re: Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:54:30 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 07:35:22 UTC-7, Bill Hart wrote: >> >> HI all, >> >> William Stein recently bemoaned the fact that SageMath currently only >> runs natively on some brands of Linux, and not natively on the lat

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread David Roe
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 11:00:14 UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> On 2015-10-07 19:31, David Roe wrote: >> > In OS X 10.11, Apple changed the operating system to no longer allow >> > modification of certain system folders, even when l

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 20:05:11 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints but > the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed to improve > performance for pointer-heavy workloads that do not need to allocate much > RAM bu

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Francesco Biscani
On 7 October 2015 at 20:13, Bill Hart wrote: > I could be wrong, but this doesn't sound like it includes SageMath. :-) > Probably :) I am not sure about the allocation limit, as the limit might only apply to large contiguous allocations. Or there might be other memory addressing tricks at play.

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 20:06:41 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > I think in FLINT you also have the issue that you are using tagged > pointers (last time I checked anyway). > Yeah, we merged some patches recently to fix some of the issues here. I don't think we got them all yet. Sometimes c

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 8:03:15 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:48:54 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: >> >> PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is not >> guaranteed and not enforceable by PARI (as it's up to GMP to decide what >

[sage-devel] Re: Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 8:08:30 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:54:30 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 07:35:22 UTC-7, Bill Hart wrote: >>> >>> HI all, >>> >>> William Stein recently bemoaned the fact that SageMath c

[sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread Harald Schilly
I've added a very short red banner to the download osx/intel download page for all mirrors. It does link back here to sage-devel, to the last two threads I found about that. What I don't want is to clutter the main index.html page with this. If this banner is not enough, then we could also add

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Peter Luschny
7. Oktober 2015 20:05:11 UTC+2, bluescarni: > > Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints but > the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed to improve > performance for pointer-heavy workloads that do not need to allocate much > RAM but still benefit from

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
4GB of Ram should be enough for anyone. :-) On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 21:24:01 UTC+2, Peter Luschny wrote: > > 7. Oktober 2015 20:05:11 UTC+2, bluescarni: >> >> Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints >> but the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Nauty vs SageMath speed comparisons?

2015-10-07 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 00:31:39 UTC-7, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > > I don't see any evidence of that. I don't think that he was asked > further > > clarification. Given that you already communicated with him for #14110, > maybe > > you could

[sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 11:57:22 UTC-7, Harald Schilly wrote: > > I've added a very short red banner to the download osx/intel download page > for all mirrors. It does link back here to sage-devel, to the last two > threads I found about that. > > What I don't want is to clutter the main

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 11:11:47 UTC-7, David Roe wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 11:00:14 UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> >>> On 2015-10-07 19:31, David Roe wrote: >>> > In OS X 10.11, Apple changed the operating sy

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread François Bissey
On 10/08/15 09:42, Dima Pasechnik wrote: On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 11:57:22 UTC-7, Harald Schilly wrote: I've added a very short red banner to the download osx/intel download page for all mirrors. It does link back here to sage-devel, to the last two threads I found about that.

[sage-devel] Re: Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
Gap built fine for me under MSYS2. There was one warning. (I used MPIR not GMP.) However, I see why Gap built fine. Like Cygwin, MSYS2 sets sizeof(long) to 8. When I earlier said otherwise, I had in fact set up my MSYS2 to use the mingw-w64, and this builds things without the posix layer. Of

[sage-devel] Re: Porting SageMath to Windows 64

2015-10-07 Thread Bill Hart
OK, after more reading I find that these are the main benefits of MSYS2 over Cygwin: * Support for interop with mingw-w64 built packages. * Ability to switch from MSYS to MinGW mode by setting an environment variable (MSYSTEM). * Automatic conversion on the fly in the msys2.0.dll between differe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: el capitan statement

2015-10-07 Thread François Bissey
On 10/08/15 09:56, François Bissey wrote: On 10/08/15 09:42, Dima Pasechnik wrote: On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 11:57:22 UTC-7, Harald Schilly wrote: I've added a very short red banner to the download osx/intel download page for all mirrors. It does link back here to sage-devel, t