On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 10:57:08PM +0200, Grzegorz wrote: > 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.
I guess many people disagree with this opinion. The main difference is that to learn lisp, you have to learn programming. This requires a lot of dedication. Many people are simply not interested in this deep level of understanding. > > 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. I don't know where you get that idea from. It's certainly not true for PERL, Python or shells. They all require sound knowledge in programming. > >> 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? The insult is that you claim that I am unable to consider what users want (hint: read mailing list archive). You ranted about the scripting *engine*. Only in the follow up mail you made it clear that you were talking about its *interface*, not the engine itself. So don't condemn me for replying on the same level. > >> 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. ----------------------- foo -------------------------- MoveToDesk MoveToPage WindowShade off Iconify off Raise ------------------------------------------------------ Read foo > a. there's this weird "+ I " Agreed. > 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) And it is very, very flexible and a *great* debugging help. > 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". Well, that is not part of the design but simply a bug (in my eyes). Parsing of the "+" command is not good. > > 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. Then our image of a "normal user" differs very much. In my eyes, the typical computer user: - Will not learn a programming language to configure a program - Hates having to learn sopmething just to use the machine - Has no deep knowledge of programming, or even the computer - Sees the computer as a tool, not as a toy - Has little time to learn the internal workings of the computer or a program. So I would hardly classify you as a "normal user". Okay, fvwm is a bit hard to configure anyway, but that is no good excuse to not think about the most inept users too. > And you say that most people with my knowledge of computers > wouldn't be able to write more complex(?) fvwm functions? No. > Just how stupid you think normal users are? Not stupid at all. I think "normal users" are simply not interested in programming. > > 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 wonder how you would delete bindings without a binding specific interface in a different language. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- 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]
