On Jan 17, 2008 9:50 PM, markus schnalke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sylvain Bertrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the > > > > X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls. > > > > > > This will make dwm unportable and we should implement the different > > > ways to communicate with X11 (socket file, network,..) > > > > If portability is a major feature for dwm, then I'll pass on this. > > Just have a look at the Unix philosophy: > > Choose portability over efficiency. > > > ... nothing more to say here, I think.
Well... I'd say that if that is the philosophy then it's incomplete. I'd go for "Choose portability over efficiency, except where efficiency really, really, really, really matters". However, since programs with GUIs only really have the GUI as the time-consuming element when they're doing excessive eye-candy (eg, all that GNOME/KDE theming stuff), and likewise standard library functions are almost never used intensively in the time consuming core of a program, trying to avoid Xlib and libc seems pointless (unless you're running on something hyper-resouce constrained like a music player or camera.) -- cheers, dave tweed__________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rm 124, School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading. "we had no idea that when we added templates we were adding a Turing- complete compile-time language." -- C++ standardisation committee
