Re: [dev] [st] will global-less changes be wanted upstream?

From: Christoph Lohmann <20h_AT_r-36.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 08:56:45 +0200

Greetings.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 08:56:45 +0200 Steven Degutis <sbdegutis_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > What is the point?
> > One obvious cons is that it will bloat the code, make it less readable.
>
> First of all, I would not agree that it would bloat the code or make
> it less readable. In fact I think it will increase readability, as
> object structure and hierarchy will be more readily apparent. Plus, it
> would make for a more clean and obvious separation of
> responsibilities, such as terminal logic and logic for drawing to the
> screen, &c.

You are wrong. The approach to shuffle everything into object‐liked
structures is what makes software development ill. Stop it now. The rea‐
son why st is keeping this global is because there is no intention to
reuse the st object in your web page or on your iPad.

Enforcing such »structure« keeps you from going the fast lane in effi‐
cient code.

The discussion on how terminals should evolve has happened on this mail‐
inglist a while ago. No, it’s not reusing them everywhere and extending
the escape codes.
 
> As a consequence, it might become easier for contributions to my fork
> of the terminal logic (i.e. if my users submit bug fixes or new
> features, &c.) to be merged upstream to st, where they would also be
> relevant.

Your narcissistic Apple user. Come down from your white horse. You
should contribute to st instead of forking it to an irrelevant platform
like Mac OS X.

Who’s still using Apple software in 2014 should be considered a fool.
iPhones are open to everyone, Mac OS X is full of security holes, the
hardware is built by slaves in the third world. And if you try to use
the job joker, learn about virtualisation. In the times of quad core
CPUs and Gbit network you can run multiple instances of Linux every‐
where.

 
Sincerely,

Christoph Lohmann
Received on Sun Aug 17 2014 - 08:56:45 CEST