Re: [dwm] What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread Mate Nagy
Hiya,
 The website lists clarity as a feature. Clarity!
 As for only having to learn C code to edit the config, I know C
 reasonably well, but I get bad vibes from config.h, I think I'd rather
 try to learn Lua.
 do consider the alternatives - xmonad is a smashing tiling wm (using it
now for its good xinerama support), and the config file is in Haskell.
 Would you rather make the effort to understand C code and bitmasks, or
Haskell? :)

Regards,
 Mate



Re: [dwm] What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread yy
2009/1/20 andrew alindb...@gmail.com:
 I've spent a lot of time with awesome in the past months, since it
 had, at the time, a sensible tiling system and some of the features I
 wanted that dwm lacked. Unfortunately, with the progression to the
 latest major revision, lua integration has ruined its usability. And
 so I came back to poke around at the dwm project and see if it had
 progressed into something usable for me.

 All I can say is: Yikes.

 Specify commands as a list of argument strings?

This isn't any weird trick. Have a look at exec(3).

 I don't even recognize the key array as C code  ... {.v = dmenucmd} },
 ...   (??)

It is C code. Not less recognizable than any config file parser.

 Tagmasks? Why are we forcing the user to do this in binary?


I would argue about other global booleans moved to a bit mask, but
tags... c'mon! They are a bit mask! Having an array of booleans for
this seems wrong. If the user has any problem with bit operations in C
the wikipedia page about it is quite enlightening. I don't think any
user capable of compiling dwm will have any problem to add or remove
tags, IMO looking at config.def.h the operation is straightforward,
even if you don't understand what you are doing. I think if you search
for it you can find macros in this list to not having to touch bit
masks at all.

 The website lists clarity as a feature. Clarity!
 As for only having to learn C code to edit the config, I know C
 reasonably well, but I get bad vibes from config.h, I think I'd rather
 try to learn Lua.

 I understand that a core tenet of the suckless development is
 efficiency.. but it seems to me that at some point between 3.x and 5.3
 this usurped usability in its entirety. The concept of the header
 file is the config file has appeared to outlive it's sensibility.
 Let's face it, a C header was never meant to be a scalable
 configuration file for something as flexible as a tagging, tiling
 window manager.

 Anyway. I don't mean to start a huge fuss, just wanted to make an
 observation as a previous user, and maybe encourage taking a step back
 and looking at the sensibility of how the whole program hangs together
 now, for the user. Because, to me, dwm was primarily about getting the
 window manager out of my way, but looking at the most recent config.h,
 I can tell it won't fit that bill for me anymore.


Really, I don't think making the usual changes to config.h (setting
your rules, tags, keys and buttons) would have taken you longer than
writing this email.
Regarding efficiency, I don't think that was the reason for any of
these changes. I would tell it was simplicity of the code (for
reference, have a look at the example in
http://www.scklss.org/common/index.html). I don't think config.h is
any more complicated now, if you tell any specific problem you found
I'm sure somebody in this list will be glad to help you.

 Sadly going back to the tiling wm dole,


Good luck!

 Andrew





-- 


- yiyus || JGL .



[dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread henry atting
I recently switched from dwm to xmonad. 
I did not like the rigid constraint on a certain number of code lines.
The resulting way of doing it with patches in my opinion is not
very sincere. I needed only two - and they did not match.

Though I do not know haskell at all I find it very simple to configure
xmonad, took me an hour or so to get things done.

But on the other hand being no coder I do not fit into the dwm target
group anyhow. ;)

henry




Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread Premysl Hruby
On (20/01/09 09:49), henry atting wrote:
 To: dwm@suckless.org
 From: henry atting nspm...@literaturlatenight.de
 Subject: [dwm]  Re: What happened here?
 Reply-To: dwm mail list dwm@suckless.org
 List-Id: dwm mail list dwm.suckless.org
 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)
 Cancel-Lock: sha1:WaXw8qx3RxRmlkx9dQJG0B9fg4s=
 
 I recently switched from dwm to xmonad. 
 I did not like the rigid constraint on a certain number of code lines.
 The resulting way of doing it with patches in my opinion is not
 very sincere. I needed only two - and they did not match.

I don't see any rigid constraint, as for SLOC, we are now pretty far
from 2k SLOC as current dwm has ~1.5k SLOCs. I personaly see this limit
as only expression of something like: we don't want dbus etc etc.

 
 Though I do not know haskell at all I find it very simple to configure
 xmonad, took me an hour or so to get things done.
 
 But on the other hand being no coder I do not fit into the dwm target
 group anyhow. ;)
 
 henry
 
 

-Ph

-- 
Premysl Anydot Hruby, http://www.redrum.cz/



Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread hiro
I think andrew's point is about dwm's very own style.
You can, though, use dwm without any problems out of the box, and thus
I don't fully agree with him.
Still, dwm somehow seems very much not unix alike for me.



Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread Yoshi Rokuko
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:37:58AM +0100, hiro wrote:
 Still, dwm somehow seems very much not unix alike for me.

what do you mean, or what would be a more nix'isch WM?

regards, y0shi



Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread yy
2009/1/20 hiro 23h...@googlemail.com:
[snip]
 Still, dwm somehow seems very much not unix alike for me.


Well, X doesn't look like UNIX neither, however you look at it.



-- 


- yiyus || JGL .



Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread hiro
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko yoshi.rok...@yokuts.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:37:58AM +0100, hiro wrote:
 Still, dwm somehow seems very much not unix alike for me.

 what do you mean, or what would be a more nix'isch WM?

 regards, y0shi



Could be, that X doesn't allow it to be more unixy, and like I said,
if you don't want to change the configuration, you could say dwm is
just a simple window manager.

But as the task for most people on this list is configuring it like
crazy, I don't think one should consider dwm unixy in this use case,
it's not flexible enough. Perhaps someone should write a window
manager consisting of some very simple and small binaries. But I
admit, I would not know where to start (I will stick to wmii and it's
9p server approach).

just my 2 euros



Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread markus schnalke
[2009-01-20 13:42] hiro 23h...@googlemail.com
 On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko yoshi.rok...@yokuts.org 
 wrote:
  On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:37:58AM +0100, hiro wrote:
  Still, dwm somehow seems very much not unix alike for me.
 
  what do you mean, or what would be a more nix'isch WM?
 
 Could be, that X doesn't allow it to be more unixy, and like I said,
 if you don't want to change the configuration, you could say dwm is
 just a simple window manager.

 [...] I don't think one should consider dwm unixy in this use case,
 it's not flexible enough.

Isn't ``unixy'' at first simplicity?

``flexible'' however is a difficult term ... remember sendmail which
_is_ flexible but in no way ``unixy''.


 But as the task for most people on this list is configuring it like
 crazy [...]

I don't share this view. I think most people have their flavor or dwm
keep this quite stable.

Of course, here is a lot of discussion ... but the reason therefore is
primary the ``experimental'' approach of dwm.


... I think all is only about the different views people have on dwm.

If you do not expect dwm to be a ready-to-use end user window
manager, then everything is alright. :-)


meillo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [dwm] Re: What happened here?

2009-01-20 Thread hiro
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM, markus schnalke mei...@marmaro.de wrote:
 [2009-01-20 13:42] hiro 23h...@googlemail.com
 On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Yoshi Rokuko yoshi.rok...@yokuts.org 
 wrote:
  On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:37:58AM +0100, hiro wrote:
  Still, dwm somehow seems very much not unix alike for me.
 
  what do you mean, or what would be a more nix'isch WM?

 Could be, that X doesn't allow it to be more unixy, and like I said,
 if you don't want to change the configuration, you could say dwm is
 just a simple window manager.

 [...] I don't think one should consider dwm unixy in this use case,
 it's not flexible enough.

 Isn't ``unixy'' at first simplicity?

 ``flexible'' however is a difficult term ... remember sendmail which
 _is_ flexible but in no way ``unixy''.


 But as the task for most people on this list is configuring it like
 crazy [...]

 I don't share this view. I think most people have their flavor or dwm
 keep this quite stable.

 Of course, here is a lot of discussion ... but the reason therefore is
 primary the ``experimental'' approach of dwm.

well, that's why it's not unixy.
of course they have to be simple, but being unixy is also about
simple, consistent apps and never changing interfaces.
But since a display manager is kind of an interface...
I don't even have anything against experimenting, just please don't
call it unixy...