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

From: Miles Rout <miles_AT_rout.nz>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 00:01:43 +1200

On 5 July 2023 6:16:34 am NZST, Dave Blanchard <dave_AT_killthe.net> wrote:
>People on this email list tend to go to an extreme in favoring simplicity above all else, which is why they release dumpster fires like the ST terminal emulator for example which has absolutely no features at all, is riddled with bugs and compatibility problems, and requires extensive patching to add in any useful features. The developers are also basement-dwelling losers, total raging assholes who take personal offense to the suggestion that their code should be better commented or that someone might fork the code to make an improved version.

There is a page on the website advertising all the many patches available to improve st and dwm.
 Few if any other software projects provide that these days, and are offended by forks.
 The suckless philosophy embraces forks and patches: they are minimal as a starting point,
and you can easily add the features you like.

>I tried ST for a time before realizing it was trash and just switched back to Xterm, the gold standard of functional X11 terminal emulators, which the ST developers talked shit about, calling "bloated" in their documentation, and saying the code wasn't good. Actually it is not bloated, the code quality is much higher than ST (and is actually commented!), It Just Works(TM), and it's noticeably faster as well when ST is patched with the juvenile "scrollback buffer support" implementation--which calls malloc() once for every line(!) of the scrollback buffer.

Ok this is obviously just contrarian trolling,
 nobody who has read xterm's source code
 thinks it is any good.
Received on Wed Jul 05 2023 - 14:01:43 CEST