Dominik Vogt wrote: >> I wanted a "QuakeTerm" once (a xterm window sliding from top of the >> screen and hiding) - a toggle function actually, very simple, move the >> window from desk 666 to current, bring it to the front and unshade. Then >> shade it and move it back to 666. In the end I needed to split the code >> into 3 functions just to keep it sane with all those Cond and CondCases. > > *Shrug* Complicated tasks should be split into small parts > anyway.
"if..then..else" constructions are not what you could call "complicated". Well, maybe in fvwm they are. >> Quoting is very bad, those ugly hacks with PipeRead just to get >> something expanded right. > > Well, *actually*, it is documented precisely in the man page. It's not about the lack (or presence) of documentation. Pulling PipeRead with a "echo" command just to expand some variables isn't what I would call "nice". So it's fully documented. Do man pages change anything about it being inconvenient or not well-thought? > But I find it somewhat odd that you do not complain that you have to > learn lisp for sawfish, but on the other hand do not care to look at > the man page to learn the fvwm command language. I never said that I'm against reading docs. I just found lisp easier, clearer, more coherent than what fvwm has to offer. > By the way, this is the main strength of the "language": you can > start writing your own config snippets right away by looking at the > examples in your config file. That will not take the beginner very > far, but it helps to overcome one's inhibitions. That's true for any given higher-level language. Not only fvwm's configs. >> You say it's not bad because you have been sitting in its code for >> such a long time you've got the Blessings of Immunity :) > > Say what you want, but *please* stop insulting me Did I insult you? In what way? a. You said it "isn't that bad" b. You are sitting in the code for a long time now c. Your perceive fvwm mainly from the "developer" point of view. Proof: I spoke about it being bad, and you replied "I'm sure you analysed the code" - but not everybody reads the code. I can tell if something is nice or ugly by using it. I don't care if it's easy to read or if it's variables are named after a pattern. I just use it. That's what WM's are for - using. Not analysing the code. Yes, not only fervent programmers use fvwm. Us, stupid[1] users do it too. So where's the insult? >> And right now it's hard to script for _everyone_ but fvwm-junkies. > > I strongly disagree. It is quite easy to write small functions like > > AddToFunc foo > + I MoveToDesk > + I MoveToPage > + I WindowShade off > + I Iconify off > + I Raise It differs from most languages and is more complicated than batch scripts. a. there's this weird "+ I " b. you can glue code to the function after invoking some different commands (I know it's a feature, but still - it's different from most languages with functions and it complicates things) c. You know how my first errors looked like? +I maximize It just didn't work. No error message, nothing. I had to understand what was wrong by myself, 'cause the manual obviously considers it as "obvious". > Of course, writing things like the "Quake" console is a difficult > task in any language. It may vary with the given syntax, but it's > an impossible task for most normal users. [1] - now I could say that I feel insulted. I consider myself a normal user. And you say that most people with my knowledge of computers wouldn't be able to write more complex(?) fvwm functions? Just how stupid you think normal users are? > All these extensions can be done without fundamental changes to > the xommand language. I already proposed most of this and much > more last year, but apparently nobody is interested in it. Alright, how do you picture deleting all bindings for the "I" context? Add twenty new commands, like DeleteBindingsInContext(contex name), DeleteBindingsToFunction(function name), ... ? Sure, you can do everything that I mentioned if you add new functions. But it's like constructing a cell phone with buttons for every entry in it's address book. Is that really "user friendly"? That's good when the address book has 10 entries. But when it has more than 100 of them it's time to think of a new interface for the user. >> I was able write some simple extensions to Sawfish on my own (random >> background changer, desk title popup after desktop switch, center >> window on screen, functions like FvwmBacker, popup-clock-and-date >> etc.) but I don't consider myself a hardcore programmer. > > I can already see my 66 year old mother writing lisp functions ... Sorry, I don't know the lady so I'll pass on that one. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
