Re: [dev] [OFFTOPIC] Recommended meta-build system

From: Uriel <>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:02:37 +0100

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Anselm R Garbe <> wrote:
> I agree to all you said, except:
> On 31 January 2010 22:00, Uriel <> wrote:
>> No, it is not OK, the gratuitous fiddling with the .h files is one of
>> the most retarded things about dwm.
> If you know a better way, please let me know. The idea behind config.h
> is to provide a mechanism where people can customize and extend dwm
> without hacking into core dwm.c.

Like with auto*hell, the idea is retarded, so the implementation can't not suck.

> People have different taste regarding the colors, fonts, layout algorithms, shortcuts etc.

People are retards that should get a life, and developers that can't
pick bearable colors should not pick colors (just ask for advice from
an artists as Rob did for acme and rio). Layout algorithms are more an
intrinsic part of the application and should not be considered 'an
option' (and configuring them via a .h file is plain idiotic),
shortcuts are part of the UI which should be sane and consistent.

> I know you will say there shouldn't be any options, but even werc has options ;)

Werc has few (if any) options that are not intrinsically linked to
*functionality* whatever a page is a wiki or a blog is not an 'option'
it is simply a different functionality part of the same app, and
things like page titles are also an intrinsic part of the application
(just as an app name is not an 'option' in a window manager but an
intrinsic part of its functionality).


> Cheers,
> Anselm
Received on Mon Feb 01 2010 - 11:02:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Feb 01 2010 - 11:12:02 UTC