On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:57:15 -0500
Greg Reagle <greg.reagle_AT_umbc.edu> wrote:
> > - ii: I don't see it using netcat.
> > - quark: Doesn't use inetd
> > - surf: depends on webkit for most stuff
> > - dwm: X11 API
> >
> > Why aren't these communicating with stdin or stdout?
>
> I think that is a great question. I would find it very instructive to see
> that question answered. I am a big fan of the suckless attitude, but I am
> not an expert suckless programmer like some of the people on this list. If
> you are inclined, please educate me. I am an eager student. Would it be
> possible or desirable to make any of the suckless tools/programs to suck
> even less by writing them to use netcat or inetd and removing all
> network-specific code? Do one thing and do it well? Is Plan 9 the logical
> extreme of this practice?
Hey Greg,
let's first look at the examples given:
- ii
He can't be serious here. ii is like 500 LOC and doesn't need special unit tests,
also thanks to the simple IRC protocol.
- quark
Wait for the changes coming up. I am the maintainer and Hiltjo is working on some
really cool stuff I'm hoping to merge soon.
-surf
Yeah so what? How are we supposed to debug webkit in quark?
-dwm
Yeah, the Xlib sucks. Next question.
If you have to design a bigger program and want to make it more flexible, having
the program operate on stdin and stdout and using netcat is ingenious, but can
also be an issue.
There are others here who are more knowledgable on networking, but in theory this
should work.
But please guys, don't flood this ml with these strange discussions and write some
code instead. If you want to nag and want to masturbate to something, go to reddit
or the Arch Forums.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Wed Feb 25 2015 - 21:29:39 CET