Maxim Vuets wrote: > 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
You are using Apache? Shame on you ;). Seriously Apache is definitively not suckless. > 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. Hmmm, I think threads make it just easier to write software that does several things concurrently. AFAIR Plan 9 has good examples were this kind of concurrency is used in a nice way. > 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. Do you mean pipes or sockets? Pipe are definitely suckless. But this whole UNIX socket API sucks really. > > 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. Regards Matthias-Christian
