Yes, the xmonad approach is very neat, but I see 2 major (IMO) drawbacks to it: 1) The end-user has to have GHC, and all the necessary libraries to compile the configuration 2) A scripting language should be simple and QUICK to learn : Haskell is clean, powerful but its learning takes time
Uwe, I noticed kind of recently the haskeem package, I have not tried it yet and I didn't know its usability. If you say it's not made for that, then I believe you. 2010/5/5 Yitzchak Gale <g...@sefer.org> > Maciej Piechotka wrote: > > After change of file you have to wait a long time as it compiles and > > links with yi. > > But Yi is a far bigger application than what Limestraël is talking > about. One of my computers is very old and much > less powerful than yours (let's just say that it has far less than > 1 Gb memory in total). On that machine, xmonad, still much > larger than Limestraël's app, recompiles its configuration file > almost instantaneously. And of course, even that > fast recompile only happens when I change the configuration, > which is almost never. > > I would try the xmonad approach to scripting in Haskell. > It is much simpler to implement than any of the others, > and much neater if you find that it works well. > > Regards, > Yitz > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
