Re: [dev] XCB: An alternative to Xlib

Right, and along those lines, I'll refuse to use Linux because Linus
uses emacs and git while I prefer vim and hg...

Why not just appreciate that there's a somewhat high-level
specification that's possibly machine verifiable, rather than having
to rely on an English spec? Domain-specific languages are great,
though they could have done better than choose XML for the syntax.

On Jun 23, 2009, at 1:03 AM, Uriel wrote:

> Because using XML to generate C code is such a wonderful idea!
>
> I propose we rewrite dwm and wmii in pure xml and then use XSLT to
> generate C code that we can compile. That is what people call progress
> in the software industry!
>
> Erik Naggum[1] would be proud!
>
> uriel
>
> [1] http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/xml/s-exp_vs_XML
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Ammar James<lone.nomad_AT_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Just ran into this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XCB
>>
>> Any thougths on it being a suckless alternative to Xlib?
>>
>>
>
Received on Tue Jun 23 2009 - 08:25:20 UTC