Re: [dwm] Minimalism
On Jan 17, 2008 9:50 PM, markus schnalke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sylvain Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls. This will make dwm unportable and we should implement the different ways to communicate with X11 (socket file, network,..) If portability is a major feature for dwm, then I'll pass on this. Just have a look at the Unix philosophy: Choose portability over efficiency. ... nothing more to say here, I think. Well... I'd say that if that is the philosophy then it's incomplete. I'd go for Choose portability over efficiency, except where efficiency really, really, really, really matters. However, since programs with GUIs only really have the GUI as the time-consuming element when they're doing excessive eye-candy (eg, all that GNOME/KDE theming stuff), and likewise standard library functions are almost never used intensively in the time consuming core of a program, trying to avoid Xlib and libc seems pointless (unless you're running on something hyper-resouce constrained like a music player or camera.) -- cheers, dave tweed__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rm 124, School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading. we had no idea that when we added templates we were adding a Turing- complete compile-time language. -- C++ standardisation committee
Re: [dwm] Minimalism
2008/1/17, markus schnalke [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sylvain Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls. This will make dwm unportable and we should implement the different ways to communicate with X11 (socket file, network,..) If portability is a major feature for dwm, then I'll pass on this. Just have a look at the Unix philosophy: Choose portability over efficiency. Indeed, but it's not craved in the rock. On this point, since the only kernel *I* consider valid is Linux with its GPLv2 licence, since *I* don't see any outsider *I* believed in, *I decided* to break with this rule. And, if in the (very very far?) future Linux is destroyed then I will port my software happily to a new decent GPLed kernel ;) 2008/1/17, Christian Garbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:37:56PM +0100, Sylvain Bertrand wrote: I'm looking to reduce my software stack and I'm targeting the C library. Have you had a look at the dietlibc? It's a shrunken C library: http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ Regards, Christian -- Christian.Garbs.http://www.cgarbs.de Thanks! I'm sure I'll find interesting things there. :) 2008/1/18, David Tweed [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 17, 2008 9:50 PM, markus schnalke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sylvain Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls. This will make dwm unportable and we should implement the different ways to communicate with X11 (socket file, network,..) If portability is a major feature for dwm, then I'll pass on this. Just have a look at the Unix philosophy: Choose portability over efficiency. ... nothing more to say here, I think. Well... I'd say that if that is the philosophy then it's incomplete. I'd go for Choose portability over efficiency, except where efficiency really, really, really, really matters. However, since programs with GUIs only really have the GUI as the time-consuming element when they're doing excessive eye-candy (eg, all that GNOME/KDE theming stuff), and likewise standard library functions are almost never used intensively in the time consuming core of a program, trying to avoid Xlib and libc seems pointless (unless you're running on something hyper-resouce constrained like a music player or camera.) -- cheers, dave tweed__ I was more thinking about mobile phones but music player and cameras will do! :)
[dwm] Minimalism
Hi, I'm looking to reduce my software stack and I'm targeting the C library. I know I just need to perform direct Linux syscalls and it will be fine. But, I would like to load ELF shared objects in my process space and for that, the only way I know is to use the dynamic linking lib from the C library. Has anybody heard about something like that? And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls. Cheers, Sylvain
Re: [dwm] Minimalism
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:37:56PM +0100, Sylvain Bertrand wrote: Hi, I'm looking to reduce my software stack and I'm targeting the C library. I know I just need to perform direct Linux syscalls and it will be fine. But, I would like to load ELF shared objects in my process space and for that, the only way I know is to use the dynamic linking lib from the C library. Has anybody heard about something like that? lolsome, libraries are here to avoid code duplication in memory, i know that most of GNU ones are blobs, but the solution is not coding like gcc -static does. This is a task of the compiler and what you're proposing is a bad software design rule. About the shared object loading..it's not inside libC on GNU systems. This task is delegated to libdl. so it's an standalone library. I think that system elf loader (ld.so) should be able to do it so..if you're writing a virus or playing with low-level stuff on *nix you can get a look on it. And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls. This will make dwm unportable and we should implement the different ways to communicate with X11 (socket file, network,..)
Re: [dwm] Minimalism
Sylvain Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls. This will make dwm unportable and we should implement the different ways to communicate with X11 (socket file, network,..) If portability is a major feature for dwm, then I'll pass on this. Just have a look at the Unix philosophy: Choose portability over efficiency. ... nothing more to say here, I think. meillo
Re: [dwm] Minimalism
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:37:56PM +0100, Sylvain Bertrand wrote: I'm looking to reduce my software stack and I'm targeting the C library. Have you had a look at the dietlibc? It's a shrunken C library: http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ Regards, Christian -- Christian.Garbs.http://www.cgarbs.de Zitat NORDTEXT, S. 677 v. 06.11.1999 - 16:50 Uhr: Denn trotz (oder gerade wegen) Windows: Ein PC ist nach wie vor alles andere als einfach zu bedienen.
