Re: [dev] [st] goals / non-goals for st?

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Aled Gest <himselfe_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure you could have a ton of field days, describing for hours all
>> kinds of irrelevant crap.  Maybe you can read a book about adapting to
>> different standards within different social groups instead of
>> lecturing to people who don't care.  It's a mailing list.  Calling
>> people stupid is not 'disproportionate aggression,' it's just calling
>> stupid people stupid.  Sorry if your life has caused you to consider
>> honesty 'aggressive.'
>
> Perhaps in your eagerness to overreact you missed the point I was
> making, so I'll simplify it for you:
>
> Filling development threads with "you're an idiot" ... "no you"
> detracts from the thread's ability to develop.

This might be true, but also sometimes the only proper way to react to
a stupid idea is to point out that it is stupid.

>> Which extant terminal emulators behave the way your proposed
>> functionality describes?
>
> In terms of using pipes to communicate with other programs, all of
> them. In terms of doing so without consuming a PTY or spawning a child
> process, none that I know of.
>
> Are you suggesting that we shouldn't develop new software because no
> existing software does what we want? I've seen no strict definition
> specifying how a terminal emulator must communicate with other
> processes. Whether it acts like a host process spawning a child and
> communicating through a PTY, or gets spawned as a child process itself
> reading and writing directly through pipes, it's still a terminal
> emulator.

That the concept of 'pty' still exists in the year 2009 is quite
fucking amazing. I'm surprised we don't carry punchcards around
anymore.

uriel
Received on Sat Oct 31 2009 - 01:40:26 UTC