Re: [dwm] Documentation!

From: Enno \ <>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 19:53:13 +0200


> I completely disagree with you. First of all, your pen and paper equations
> are used only one time and that is when you do the equation. Afterwards you
> throw the paper away and go with the results. When programming, you have to
> make sure that the code is read- and understandable when you get back to
> it. What makes good code is how fast you can grasp its workings when first
> reading it (when you read your code after a year of not touching it, it is
> like the first time you encounter it). And it is not a good thing to have
> short variables and document them somewhere else. Have you ever heard of
> the Single Point Of Truth (SPOT) rule? If not, read that:

The fascinating thing about args style is, it is readable. For me it
needs much more brainpower to read a sequence of words without spaces
(like leftSideOfTheHouse) than identify a single letter. It is also
much easier to me to link this letter to a certain meaning. I think a
good variable naming should avoid identifer longer than 4 chars (at
least in local variables). This improves readability in function
function(argument1, argument2, argument3, argument5)
function(a1, a2, a3)

> I completely disagree with you (again). How about laptops? How about those
> nifty small laptops like the eeepc? Multihead-setups are useful, and should
> be supported (or at least there should be ways to implement support
> easily).

the idea of dwm is it is args wm, it fits to his own requirements. If
you don't like something (like I do sometimes) you can easily fork
you're own branch and hack it. dwm should NOT fit to ANY imaginable
workflow. It should fit to args workflow. And it is a great base to
build a windowmanager which fits to my workflow. And maybe for yours

-- - Real Community Distro - Gnuffy on Ipaq (Codename Peggy)
Received on Sun May 18 2008 - 19:53:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 15:40:38 UTC