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

From: Uriel <>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:45:30 +0100

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Aurélien Aptel
<> wrote:
>> 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.
> I was thinking the exact same thing when I wrote the pty part.
> They're not well documented, they're really dated and every OS handle
> them differently (when they handle them at all), some functions are
> POSIX, some of them BSD-only (but are implemented in linux...).
> On a different subject, the current design of st is not really adapted
> to the things it's supposed to do (see the goal page). When I started
> st (originaly bt) I just wanted a simple terminal (simple as in simple
> tiny and sane xterm replacement) but the suckless goals are obviously
> different. So st will need a rewrite at some point. (thank you captain
> obvious, etc)

Nah, Arg just has no clue. Let him write his own terminal with his own
retarded 'features' if he wants one. I have not tried st, but I do
like your original goal.

Received on Sat Oct 31 2009 - 11:45:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Oct 31 2009 - 11:48:02 UTC