On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Chip Camden <sterl...@camdensoftware.com> wrote: > Quoth Chad Perrin on Thursday, 23 September 2010: >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:24:58PM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: >> > >> > If you like xmonad, check out scrotwm. It's inspired by xmonad, >> > lightweight, written in C by oBSD dev, actively maintained, and >> > vim-like (among other things ;-). >> >> Why is "written in C" considered such a great benefit by the Scrotwm >> developer(s)? Earlier today, I read this on the site: >> >> "On the other hand xmonad has great defaults, key bindings and >> xinerama support but is crippled by not being written in C." >> >> What's up with that? How does Haskell "cripple" xmonad? >> >> -- >> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] > > > I wondered the same thing myself. Haskell is compiled, and the result is > very efficient. > > I also wondered why the mentions about being actively maintained -- it seems > to me that xmonad gets updated pretty regularly. >
I only mention scrotwm's active development, not to compare it's development to xmonad's, but to point out that your issues will be taken seriously . . . in a timely manner. . . not that they won't be take seriously in the xmonad setting. Please, use xmonad if it meets your requirements. I apologise for suggesting "something." Chad P., take a pill ;-) _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
