Re: [dev] XCB: An alternative to Xlib

DSLs are great, but that is no excuse to build systems so insanely
broken and complex that you need to generate all of the code to
implement a protocol because it is too insanely complex to be done
properly.

The whole thing stinks way too much of CORBA/SOAP...

uriel

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Donald Chai<donald.chai_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 - 14:03:13 UTC