Re: [dev] iim - ii improved and rewriten

From: Nico Golde <>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:28:14 +0100

* Ivan Kanakarakis <> [2013-01-08 14:52]:
> On 8 January 2013 14:02, Nico Golde <> wrote:
> > * Anselm R Garbe <> [2013-01-08 12:50]:
> >> On 8 January 2013 03:05, Ivan Kanakarakis <> wrote:
> >> > I've been tweaking ii's code lately, mainly cleaning it up
> >> > and fixing a couple of things I noticed, but ended up
> >> > rewriting it from scratch.
> >> > Thus resulted iim[0] (name given by ^7heo on irc - thanks)
> >>
> >> Why not contributing to the official ii project instead? I guess nion
> >> would be ok with this.
> >>
> >> Please check with nion.
> >
> > As mentioned on irc, send patches ;)
> yep, I have to study for an exam but hopefully will find some time do it


> [offtopic]
> the _obvious reasons_ though, are not so obvious to me.
> suckless is supposed to be about software that sucks less,
> software that is simple, easy to understand and easy to hack.
> if a piece of software is less complex than a suckless project
> then the suckless people should want to have it.

Yep makes sense, even though it should not be the goal of the project to
evaluate every single replacement for suckless software and assign a suckless

> otherwise suckless is just like every other organization that
> builds their own tools and ties themselves so hard to those
> tools that forgets why that organization was created in the first
> place, thinking that nothing else can ever work as good

I totally agree on this general assumption. I fail to see how it applies to
something which sucks technically exactly the same. In this particular case,
it's mostly about personal taste and reducing a couple of lines of code for
something that is already significantly reduced compared to the pieces of
software that are seen as bloat.

Don't get me wrong, I think I already explained this on IRC. I am not opposed
to the idea of having something like iim. It's certainly a fun project to hack
on. But I am against reinventing the wheel for the sake of it.

Of course you can argue that iim sucks less than ii because it's parsing is
simpler (I don't think it makes sense to argue with SLOC for two such small
projects), but that brings up the natural question of why not patching that
instead of replacing something completely.

I'm not trying to pull a Jörg Schilling here, I just don't get your thinking
of how free software and contributions in this ecosystem work.

Nico Golde - - - GPG: 0xA0A0AAAA

Received on Tue Jan 08 2013 - 22:28:14 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jan 08 2013 - 22:36:04 CET