On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:10:25 +0100
Florian Bruhin <me_AT_the-compiler.org> wrote:
Hey Florian,
> I recently added qutebrowser to the "rocks" page and it was
> subsequently removed[1]. I accept that, though it raises a few
> questions:
I sincerely hope you don't have to go into psychiatric treatment
resulting from the severe loss you encountered here.
> Is that page for software (more or less) adhering to the suckless
> philosophy, or is it (or at least the "application" section) about
> things *working well with dwm* like the introduction suggests?
>
> Programs
> ========
> Some programs work well with dwm. Some general rules of thumb
> for judging a programs as usable are: [...]
>
> If it's the former and (at least according to the log of removed stuff
> in general) this is mostly about the language something is implemented
> in:
The thing is, even though I agree with you the section is not very clear
(of course it means the former), that dwm doesn't accept derivations from
the ICCCM-conventions[0] like most other window managers do.
Read more about it on the sucks-page[1].
> Why are Firefox addons (Vimperator/VimFX) written in
> Coffescript/Javascript considered suckless? Or if you want to go even
> further: Why is there stuff in there using glib (in a non-GTK
> context)? After all that's listed on the top of sucks.md ;)
Why did we develop surf using webkit, which obviously sucks?
It's all about compromises. You can't write addons for Firefox in sane
languages, so let's pick the best from the ones written in a sucky
interface language.
Interfaces generally are an issue. If the interface is inherently non-
suckless, it's all about choosing the least trade-off.
Cheers
FRIGN
[0]:
http://tronche.com/gui/x/icccm/
[1]:
http://suckless.org/sucks
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Wed Mar 04 2015 - 08:57:22 CET