uncomplicate

2016-05-06T09:01:30.000020Z

wouldn't that be a heavyweight solution? Neanderthal is a library - it should work in any environment you put it.

2016-05-06T18:19:17.000025Z

@aaelony atlas builds in that container wouldn't be optimized for the hardware architecture the container is running on.

2016-05-06T18:20:19.000026Z

yeah, it's definitely a tension between ease of install and use versus performance (which is the main point). I'm in agreement now.

2016-05-06T18:21:11.000027Z

was just a crazy thought to think that, well, if it's only tested and seamless on one platform right now, just make a docker container for that platform. But from a performance context, it defeats the purpose.

2016-05-06T18:21:41.000028Z

From a user adoption library perspective though, it might make sense, but not if benchmarking is the goal

2016-05-06T18:26:46.000029Z

It is also tested and even more seamless (as in works out of the box) on OSX 😉

😎 1
2016-05-06T18:29:52.000031Z

And even from the user adoption point: how is fiddling with a docker container easier than installing a pre-built atlas with your system's package manager? On linux, for example, almost all distributions support installing atlas with something like pacman -Suy atlas.

2016-05-06T18:31:12.000032Z

If someone sends you a windows atlas.dll, that solves the biggest current hurdle for using Neanderthal on Windows.