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

On 1 February 2010 11:02, Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Anselm R Garbe <anselm_AT_garbe.us> wrote:
>> I agree to all you said, except:
>>
>> On 31 January 2010 22:00, Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com> 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.

It's not like configure, it simply eases source modifications/patching.

>> 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.

Well if you ask artists they will come up with gradients, translucency
and other bullshit. I think the default color scheme in dwm is great.

>> 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).

Well I disagree, there is no real difference between werc's
initrc[.local] and dwm's config.h.

Cheers,
Anselm
Received on Mon Feb 01 2010 - 11:15:10 UTC