Re: [dev] dwm development continues NOW

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:43:40 +0200
hiro <23hiro_AT_googlemail.com> wrote:

> > As said, don't miss that all these efforts will be kept at
> its most minimalist solution.
>
> Easily said...

Easily done...

> > Separating interface and implementation...
>
> Not always sane.

In most cases it is. Figure if your computer would only run if a
certain type of power plant was delivering the electricity...

> In this case I agree that it's rather not worth it.
> If Arg eagerly wants to try it nobody will prevent him in doing so.
> But if he really managed to bring us out of X doom, I'd be greatly
> surprised :)

I really don't see that suckless == as few LOCs as possible. For me
that is seldom the case. Suckless == most user friendly and minimize
unnecessary repetitive work. In case of dwm it is the window layout.
Almost no more window moving/resizing in the floating sense. That is
suckless for me. Not the size of dwm.

So if dwm will make it possible for different implementations depending
on needs it would be very nice. I don't want pango as default, but I
have at least one computer I would need it on or I will have to choose
another wm.

Best wishes

Preben Randhol
Received on Sun Jun 21 2009 - 17:11:41 UTC