2008/1/17, markus schnalke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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.
Indeed, but it's not craved in the rock. On this point, since the only kernel *I* consider valid is Linux with its GPLv2 licence, since *I* don't see any outsider *I* believed in, *I decided* to break with this rule. And, if in the (very very far?) future Linux is destroyed then I will port my software happily to a new decent GPLed kernel ;) 2008/1/17, Christian Garbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:37:56PM +0100, Sylvain Bertrand wrote: > > > I'm looking to reduce my software stack and I'm targeting the C > > library. > > Have you had a look at the dietlibc? It's a shrunken C library: > http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ > > Regards, > Christian > -- > ....Christian.Garbs.....................................http://www.cgarbs.de Thanks! I'm sure I'll find interesting things there. :) 2008/1/18, David Tweed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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__________________________ I was more thinking about mobile phones.... but music player and cameras will do! :)