2008/8/29, Donald Chai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I think that mouse is not really important for dwm status bar. >> So we can neglect of such feedback. >> I can not agree we you that shared libraries and some ABI is so bad. >> But agree that it is too heavy for such program as dwm. It is useless >> here. On the other hand, extending via code patching is wierd. >> Especially when you need to apply more than one patch. > > You might enjoy reading this interview with Don Knuth: > http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1193856 > Basically, "re-editable" code is better than reusable code (to him).
Thanks a lot for the link, I'll look it a bit later. My 5 cents (: Knuth is a mathematician. All that theory is good, but it is not always applicable in practice. IIRC, Eric Raymond says that binary RPC is evil, threads are evil etc. But look: we are using Apache httpd with threads and mod_*.so, PAM... So every technical approach is good and useful in some exact context of its usage. Threads are evil for dwm (: but is good for highload network server. And so on. Just for a note: yes, .so for dwm is evil. I've already said it. But unix-way IPC---looks not so bad, I think. > What version of dwm are you using? Tip. > dwm has had two workspaces/desktops since I've been using it > (admittedly not very long). Press MOD-Tab to switch between them. Hm, right. In fact it is just previous set of tags. Not actualy that I want to get. And does not work with more than two desktops. -- Hoc est simplicissimum! maxim.vuets.name