Re: [dev] Minimalist software. Should I care?

2023-07-06 Thread dther
So, a lot of people have weighed in on this one email.
So much so that it's taken up about my screen space in replies.
I've decided to jump in with my own two cents, because why not.
It's a fun question to chew on.

I use minimal software because I find it fun to hack software,
and I find peace of mind in being able to understand said software.
I use suckless software because I discovered that I
greatly prefer programming in minimal UNIX-like environments
over literally anything else.

I also found that I wanted *a lot less* from my computers than I expected.
I liked vim more than I liked IDEs, so I used it.
Then I found out I liked neovim more.
Now I'm using Berkley nvi and I'm surprised how little I really need.
(I still miss some stuff, but not enough to bother installing a vim package
on my new installations.)
Maybe if I were a Java or Python developer, I'd like IDEs more,
but I'm not, so I don't. Cscope and the compiler is enough.

It's like woodworking, y'know? There's a million different ways to shape wood,
and none of them are "better" than any other.
Many woodworkers swear by a table saw, and say that you literally cannot
make furniture fast enough to sustain a major business without it.
And the data backs them up there- just about every furniture factory on the
planet that turns a profit relies on a table saw.

But I don't have a table saw, I make like, 1 piece of furniture a month using
hand tools, for fun. I've never sold one. I've made negative dollars doing
furniture work. But you know what I *do* have? A cool bench to sit on,
the bruised thumbs to show for it, and a pile of scrap wood from all the times
I *didn't* manage to make a bench. I enjoyed the process enough that I tried it
again until I got it. And also I can't afford a table saw anyway.

But (this) software was free!
Try something out, and if you don't like it, stop using it.
Or maybe you like *most of it* and just want to change something small.
That happens enough times, you end up somewhere like here. ONE OF US. ONE OF US

oh and final note: bloat is subjective. if I didn't care about social media
I wouldn't have a browser. If I didn't care about playing music in the shed,
I wouldn't use spotify.
(yes i use mpd when i'm at my computer but i own a smart phone, sue me)

Different people ask different things of their computers,
I like this software because it does what I ask.

 - dther

On 23/07/04 07:06PM, Nikita Krasnov wrote:
> Just bear with me on this one, this is not a bait or a troll, I promise. I
> genuinely fell very confused.
> 
> What would be the point of using minimalist software if bloated and
> excessively complex programs completely satisfy all my needs? I am not the
> kind of person that works directly with hardware, but it's not like I use my
> system only as a bootloader for a web browser either. It's just that my
> current workflow feels pretty complete to me.
> 
> Take LaTeX, for example. I do all of my LaTeX in TeXstudio and, frankly, I'm
> satisfied with it. Autocompletion is there by default and there are many
> shortcuts that I don't need to set up myself. I simply use the all of this.
> 
> You could say that TeXstudio is pretty bloated and isn't that flexible in
> terms of configuring and using it in conjunction with other applications.
> And you'd be right. But if I'll try to use more minimalist software like
> Neovim I would spend an endless amount of time configuring and patching all
> the features I now take for granted. And even if I succeed, there will
> certainly be a time when I would need some feature I haven't thought of in
> advance (a need to use a debugger inside Nvim, idk) and I would have to
> either avoid this feature for the time being or abandon anything I am
> currently doing and try to search information on how to integrate this thing
> into my system and into my workflow.
> 
> If I had used one of the bloated programs I probably could have found a
> solution in one of the menus after reading few Stack Overflow answers. But
> with Neovim I'd have to first find the program that would be suitable for
> what I try to achieve, then I'd have to read many lines or pages of
> documentation, after that I'd have to implement that thing and only then I'd
> be able to use the thing.
> 
> Such minimalism just seems unpractical to me. Maybe I have the wrong mindset
> when it comes to these things.
> 
> I do love using more niche and minimalist programs. I like when things are
> small, simple and understandable. I really like C over C++, Rust or anything
> else exactly for that reason. It's just makes computers fun, comfortable and
> cute (idk how else to describe it). But am not fond of endlessly configuring
> these things before they become even semi-practical. I really don't know
> what to think about all of this. What do you have to say about this?
> 
> --
> Nikita
> 



Re: [dev] [dwm] default window attaching behaviour

2021-11-30 Thread dther
On 21/11/29 01:23PM, Mateusz Okulus wrote:
> On 21/11/29 06:25PM, dther wrote:
> > I've been thinking about dwm's default behaviours, ,,,
> 
> As you say you launch new programs as you need them. This means the
> launched program should have highest priority because you want to use it
> right now. <...>
> so you want to open it, do something with it, then close it.

I see- I'd made an assumption here that I now realise doesn't apply to
all users. My tendency is to launch a few "big" programs,
most of which can't easily run in a terminal
(a browser, a terminal running tmux and/or an image editor), and only launch
new "temporary" terminals when I need to run and see the output of a
command. If I need an TUI volume mixer or something, I'd launch it as a tmux
window or in floating mode to avoid disturbing my layout.

> I'm not quite sure what do you mean by displacing the entire stack.
> <...>
> This might be confusing, but only if you open the window for later use.

Realised this is my personal preference- since most of my windows are
long running, I find it useful for them to occupy the same visual area
at all times, in case I need to look at them for reference.

> You'd need to be more specific about your use cases.
> <...> If my assumptions are correct, I'd reconsider if you really need that
> many programs opened in one view. I'd split programs between tags and
> use solutions like tmux or built-in windows.

You're probably right, honestly. My windows are tagged by "purpose"
(e.g. document paging, editing, etc),
and rather than using them like workspaces, I use a heavily modified
version of the old workspaces patch, with each "workspace" being like its
own dwm instance. I'm realising now that my ad-hoc tmux implementation
is hiding the fact that I'm using way too many windows at once.

Thanks for the explanation. Made me rethink how I use my windows,
and that I could probably do with a major rework of my dwm instance.

> All that being said, it was probably just for consistency. You'd
> expect new windows to go on the top of the stack, not the bottom.
> Whether it'd be better for most workflows probably wasn't even
> considered.

This makes sense ._.



[dev] [dwm] default window attaching behaviour

2021-11-29 Thread dther
I've been thinking about dwm's default behaviours, and one of them
that's always confused me is how newly attached windows, by default,
launch as the "master". Why is this the case? Intuitively, when I begin
working, I launch the most important program first, and launch new
programs as I need them. I'd imagine at least 50% of people follow this
strategy of launching new windows as well. In general, older windows
are more "important". Why displace not only the master client,
but the *entire stack*, for the window least likely to remain useful?

I realise that this is a problem that can be easily solved with a patch
(and, in fact, I use attachbelow for this reason), but given how common
(I imagine) the above strategy is, my question is-
would it be reasonable for dwm's master branch include some way to toggle
an alternative "attachbottom" strategy?

I'd also like to know if I'm correct about my assumptions.
Do give thoughts if your "window initialisation"
thought process is completely different from mine.



Re: [dev] tcvt: very useful for seeing more at once

2021-10-15 Thread Rudy Dellomas (dther)
On 21/10/15 06:23AM, Greg Reagle wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, at 9:56 PM, Rudy Dellomas (dther) wrote:
> > [...]
> > `tmux new ';' splitw -h man dwm`
> 
> No, this does not do what tcvt does.  Have you actually tried it?  Nor does 
> the MANWIDTH variable.
> 

You're right, sorry, my mistake. I realised after sending that that
`tcvt` creates one long terminal as opposed to 4 terminal panes. That's
useful behaviour that I'm surprised there isn't a tmux
command for. I could see myself using it to monitor logs and such.

I tried to whip something up using `copy-mode`, which allows the reading
of another pane's history using using the flags `-t` and `-s`. I
couldn't get it to work, but I'm sure it would be possible, if not easy,
to make some kind of special .tmuxrc. Using tmux rather than inventing a
new terminal emulator would be worth it (in my opinion) in preventing
strange printing behaviour.



Re: [dev] tcvt: very useful for seeing more at once

2021-10-14 Thread Rudy Dellomas (dther)
On 21/10/14 12:28PM, Greg Reagle wrote:
> FYI
> 
> Useful, but a lot of wasted screen space on my monitor:
> man dwm
> 
> MUCH better!  I see the entire man page:
> tcvt -c 4 man dwm
> 

`tcvt` is a python terminal multiplexer, which is a bit excessive for the
purpose of saving terminal columns. Even forgoing that GNU man has
$MANWIDTH, why not just use vertical split tmux? It's faster (written in
C) and is much more versatile. This would do more or less the same:

`tmux new ';' splitw -h man dwm`