I am very if my questions are stupid. I am not clever man. And I am not
productive in any way. I have not proposed any change yet. I do not want
to start a flamewar. I have never used sloccount - thank you for the
tip. I will try to learn it and use it. I am not here to disrupt the
suckless world domination. I am not pretending to be able to argue, for
I am not. I am just an ordinary stupid user of dwm, curious about future
evolving of dwm. I only wonder if dwm will become larger and I would
also like to hear your opinions on code length versus smart and small
constructions. I am very sorry to made you disgusted by my rough
foolishness.
mkopta
On 10/30/2011 09:01 AM, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Martin Kopta wrote:
>> "dwm is only a single binary, and its source code is intended to never exceed
>> 2000 SLOC." (http://dwm.suckless.org/)
>>
>> $ wc< dwm.c
>> 2069 6745 52319
>> $
>>
>> First 25 LOC is license and there is some whitespace too, however dwm.c is
>> obviously somewhere around 2 kSLOC.
>>
>> 1) I wonder if the rule of 2 kSLOC is still valid.
>> 2) Does that mean dwm won't gain any more features?
>> 3) Does that mean the code will be cut short to make place for another features?
>> 4) Should be the code made smaller by witty constructions or do you prefer
>> boring and obvious constructions (which are generaly longer)?
>> 5) Will be the limit of 2 kSLOC lifted up?
>>
>> Thank you for answering and your opinions.
>
> I am sorry, but I have to ask: Why are you asking five stupid questions?
> Are you productive in any way? Did you propose a change yet? Are you try-
> ing to start a flamewar? Did you ever use sloccount? Are you from some
> intelligence agency to disrupt the suckless world domination? Why are you
> trying to pretend to be able to argue?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Christoph Lohmann
>
Received on Sun Oct 30 2011 - 09:26:14 CET