Right, we started with boost-python to have a language to play with. There was
no standalone cython in the first and c++ had not been so well supported by
cython then. So, boost was the rapid way to get a small OSS with few
dependencies. However, the middle-end ;-) is flexible, so the bindings
On Sunday 14 Jun 2015 17:21:21 R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
I think the main reason why Sage has its own Cython bindings is mainly
historical -- they existed before polybori added their own python bindings.
It would probably be a better idea to use polybori's own bindings in Sage
-- it makes no
@Andrew Sorry, your Cudd sources are fine, I misunderstood some commit message.
About naming: I personally would prefer BRiAl, it was on my shortlist for
naming the new project 9 years ago. You are free to use it.
@Martin: Thank you for your emergency call at your Blog! Its nice to see that
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 5:21 AM, 'Martin Albrecht' via sage-devel
sage-devel@googlegroups.com wrote:
Hi all,
On Saturday 13 Jun 2015 10:41:15 Francois Bissey wrote:
I think Andrew has already done quite a bit of the porting to autotools
and
some python 3 fixes. But neither he or I want
Your plan does look good to me Martin.
Just note it wont be trivial.
--
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
On 13/06/2015, at 22:00, 'Martin Albrecht' via sage-devel
sage-devel@googlegroups.com wrote:
Hi all,
On Friday 12 Jun 2015 13:45:05 R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
What about this:
Now: We work on making polybori an optional package in sage.
* At least going by this thread, the number of
On Saturday 13 Jun 2015 10:08:32 Francois Bissey wrote:
On 13/06/2015, at 22:00, 'Martin Albrecht' via sage-devel
sage-devel@googlegroups.com wrote:
Hi all,
On Friday 12 Jun 2015 13:45:05 R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
What about this:
Now: We work on making polybori an optional
I am pretty much with Martin here (although i guess he uses polybory far
more often than i do). I don't know much about autotools, but i can try to
give a small hand on that and the python3 part. I hope with the arrival of
July i will have some spare time for that.
I am also considering
Hi all,
On Friday 12 Jun 2015 13:45:05 R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
What about this:
Now: We work on making polybori an optional package in sage.
* At least going by this thread, the number of people who use polybori in
Sage is small enough for it to make sense to have polybori as an optional
Hi all,
FYI, I put this out. Let's see if there *are* other users besides me:
https://martinralbrecht.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/polybori-is-dead-it-needs-your-help/
Cheers,
Martin
On Saturday 13 Jun 2015 11:00:16 Martin Albrecht wrote:
Hi all,
On Friday 12 Jun 2015 13:45:05 R. Andrew Ohana
On 13/06/2015, at 22:30, 'Martin Albrecht' via sage-devel
sage-devel@googlegroups.com wrote:
On Saturday 13 Jun 2015 10:08:32 Francois Bissey wrote:
On 13/06/2015, at 22:00, 'Martin Albrecht' via sage-devel
sage-devel@googlegroups.com wrote:
Hi all,
On Friday 12 Jun 2015 13:45:05 R.
Hi all,
On Saturday 13 Jun 2015 10:41:15 Francois Bissey wrote:
I think Andrew has already done quite a bit of the porting to autotools and
some python 3 fixes. But neither he or I want to be a maintainer - at least
for the long term.
ah, sorry that I missed that. Great! How about this:
1.
I started talking to some people from the symbolic computation community to
discuss options (e.g. if someone wants to take over maintenance). Hence, don't
rush to a conclusion please, I'd really like to keep PolyBoRi around somehow
but don't want to be (sole) maintainer.
Cheers,
Martin
On
On Friday, June 12, 2015, 'Martin Albrecht' via sage-devel
sage-devel@googlegroups.com wrote:
I started talking to some people from the symbolic computation community to
discuss options (e.g. if someone wants to take over maintenance). Hence,
don't
rush to a conclusion please, I'd really
Hi,
so, the Singular team *wants* to keep PolyBoRi alive, but it's currently not
clear if and when they *can* devote resources to it. This will be clarified
over the next few months it seems.
Cheers,
Martin
On Friday 12 Jun 2015 10:14:53 Martin Albrecht wrote:
I started talking to some
On 2015-06-12 14:34, 'Martin Albrecht' via sage-devel wrote:
Hi,
so, the Singular team *wants* to keep PolyBoRi alive, but it's currently not
clear if and when they *can* devote resources to it. This will be clarified
over the next few months it seems.
Doesn't OpenDreamKit help with this?
--
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Alexander Dreyer
jan.alexander.dre...@gmail.com wrote:
From my point of view a fork - or better call it sequel - would be the
best.
Unfortunately, all original developers like me went to industrial
positions, which are completely unrelated to PolyBoRi or any
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, 'Martin Albrecht' via sage-devel
sage-devel@googlegroups.com wrote:
Hi,
so, the Singular team *wants* to keep PolyBoRi alive, but it's currently
not
clear if and when they *can* devote resources to it. This will be clarified
over the next few months it
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 12:11:34 PM UTC-7, William wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Francesco Biscani
blues...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On 11 June 2015 at 20:13, Travis Scrimshaw tsc...@ucdavis.edu
javascript: wrote:
Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a
Hi all,
I use it. Not as much as I used to (my research moved on) but it would be
rather if it was gone. I also know that some people in my field use it, i.e.
the BooleanPolynomialRing. If that was gone, we'd go from okay-ish to hell-ish
for computing with an object which quite naturally
Or at least it is not hard to write modern C++ that is very difficult for
others to work on.
Isn't it true for most languages? I have seen nested list comprehension
one-liners in Python that make my skin crawl.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
(off topic)
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Francesco Biscani bluesca...@gmail.com wrote:
Or at least it is not hard to write modern C++ that is very difficult for
others to work on.
Isn't it true for most languages?
In my opinion, absolutely unequivocally not.Each programming
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:12:53 PM UTC-5, William wrote:
Even if you know C++ well, it is a much more difficult language than
Python. Or at least it is not hard to write modern C++ that is very
difficult for others to work on.
To be fair, I recall people complaining that
Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a pro by bigger businesses with
proprietry software to help prevent reverse-engineering (although from what
I've been told, they typically run it through a scrambler before compiling
the code for release). However, from my experience, it is the quality
I agree partially about your best programming language statement: there
are languages which are useful for very few things - see Fortran - while
others have broader applicability. With C++ one can do well and comfortably
enough scientific computing, system programming, graphics, and a host of
On 11 June 2015 at 20:13, Travis Scrimshaw tsc...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a pro by bigger businesses with
proprietry software to help prevent reverse-engineering (although from what
I've been told, they typically run it through a scrambler before compiling
On 06/11/2015 02:55 PM, Francesco Biscani wrote:
Not sure what you mean by that. I have worked in the past for a
multinational company (100k employees) on software which costs hundreds
of thousands of dollars per license, and never heard of that. I am not
an assembly guy but I would think
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Francesco Biscani
bluesca...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 June 2015 at 20:13, Travis Scrimshaw tsc...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a pro by bigger businesses with
proprietry software to help prevent reverse-engineering (although from
From my point of view a fork - or better call it sequel - would be the best.
Unfortunately, all original developers like me went to industrial positions,
which are completely unrelated to PolyBoRi or any kind of algebraic software.
Meanwhile, family and the new jobs don't leave us time to work
Bravo, that was pretty good :)
On 11 June 2015 at 21:10, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Francesco Biscani
bluesca...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 June 2015 at 20:13, Travis Scrimshaw tsc...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a
On 11 Jun 2015 20:10, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
It's officially called The Wolfram Language [1] beating out [2] many
It would never surprise me is it was renamed to the Stephen Wolfram
Language.
Dave.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Wow, is that some top-shelf navel lint. Perhaps we should call the
language WolframWolframWolfram, or WWW for short. Then, Stephen and
Al Gore can fight over who invented what.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave
Ltd) drkir...@kirkbymicrowave.co.uk wrote:
On 11
PS: Perhaps I should admit that PolyBoRi is dead. It's a hard year: Spock,
Winnetou, Dracula - and now PolyBoRi - died.
--
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
So folks, be careful when you fork---you might end up as maintainer.
--
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
On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Ralf Stephan gtrw...@gmail.com wrote:
So folks, be careful when you fork---you might end up as maintainer.
Good point. I think we should either
1. Remove polybori or
2. Have a specific person (or persons) step up to be maintainer.
I'm fine with either option.
Hi all,
over at http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18437 we have
some heated debate about what to do about polybori.
Let me summarize the situation.
* at this moment polybori is dead upstream
* polybori is the last package using scons
* is one of the last packages, if not the last, not
ready for
I have absolutely nothing invested in this, but I am curious about whether
bringing (as much as possible of) polybori into the Sage library or
extcode-successor or something would help people revivify the project? I
don't know how many people there are out there who would be potentially
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:40 PM, François Bissey
francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Hi all,
over at http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18437 we have
some heated debate about what to do about polybori.
Let me summarize the situation.
* at this moment polybori is dead upstream
* polybori
I thought I was going to misrepresent stuff, but may be not to that extent.
If we fork polybori I do not see the point of patching it for sage on top
of the fork. (3) is very much out as far as I am concerned.
François
On 11/06/2015, at 14:08, R. Andrew Ohana andrew.oh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/15 14:39, William Stein wrote:
I could easily imagine Andrew and Francois and Jereon are all
dutifully imagining that I know all kinds of Polybori enthusiasts and
there are good reasons that Polybori really must be really well
supported in Sage. However, it turns out this at least
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Ralf Stephan gtrw...@gmail.com wrote:
There is not much difference between 1 and 2 because, while there is no
review mechanism for Pynac admin commits on github, it's on trac instead.
And the real problem is always the language barrier: adding C++ to an
already
Hi,
Can somebody (say at least 3-5 people) who actually *use* polybori on
a somewhat regular basis make some supporting remarks?I personally
have used polybori for anything, nor do I really know of anybody else
who has. If there aren't at least a few people who use it regularly,
then we
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, François Bissey
francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
On 06/11/15 14:39, William Stein wrote:
I could easily imagine Andrew and Francois and Jereon are all
dutifully imagining that I know all kinds of Polybori enthusiasts and
there are good reasons that
There is not much difference between 1 and 2 because, while there is no review
mechanism for Pynac admin commits on github, it's on trac instead. And the real
problem is always the language barrier: adding C++ to an already huge skillset
is too much for many authors and most reviewers,
44 matches
Mail list logo
