Re: [dev] [dwm] New software: swm & infobary

From: Страхиња Радић <sr_AT_strahinja.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:17:00 +0100

Дана 24/10/27 03:07AM, Raymond Cole написа:
> I see that you linked to Luke Smith's website in another email, so it
> looks like you know him. That guy really helped popularize suckless
> software, didn't he? In fact, he's the way I knew suckless. Maybe you
> have not noticed but the features that swm implements are chosen or
> designed basing on the features his heavily patched dwm has, so I expect
> at least someone like him wouldn't be very resistent to these features.

I know of Luke Smith, I don't know him personally. He is not a mainline
suckless developer, and his views don't always align with the suckless
movement (his choice of license being just the most visible difference).


> By the way, they do work, right? I don't even know if people have no
> problem cloning my projects (basing on the way you count the lines it
> seems that you do), sigh.

No, I had no problem git cloning your project's repository. Like I
said, the line count is a rough estimate, but still roughly indicative
of greater complexity.


> There are 91 function declarations in dwm.c, ordered alphebtically in a
> monolithic list, versus 71 in swm.h, grouped by compilation units that
> defines them. Also, the Client struct has 33 fields in dwm and 31 in swm.

Whether the number of functions means anything, and how far, is
debatable. Hypothetical example: which of the programs is better and in
what way--the one which has a greater number of focused, easily
understandable, reusable functions, or the one which has a smaller
number of large, specialized, functions spanning over several 25-line
screens?


> The layout description language might look somewhat a bloat, but it's
> implemented in lyt.c alone and exposes only 4 global functions. What's
> inside lyt.c is like code in a libray that users rarely need to care.

Windows has a lot of programs and services running in the background
that are "just some code" which "users rarely need to care". I prefer
to at least choose the features that the programs I run will have.
Suckless software solves this ingeniously--the core program is as
simple as it gets, and the users are free to add functionality through
third-party source code patches.


> [...] Then I began to see dwm's state of being a bare-boned program
> plus various available patches as a transitional phase that awaits
> the emergence of certain powerful combination.

Ah, but it only might seem that way. It is not transitional, it is
intentional. It is the design choice, and like I said, an ingenious
one. It gives the user the full control.


> clickability

Is not needed in a program which should display status information.
Literally what a status bar program should do is collect and display
information, full stop.

Furthermore, to anyone working in Unix CLI, mouse interface is clumsy
and unnatural. It requires lifting a hand from the keyboard to grab and
control the mouse, and then use the mouse to navigate the pointer and
click, and then likely return the hand to the keyboard. All of that is
an unnecessary waste of time.


> It seems like you get the impression that I want suckless to host my
> projects? I never requested that.

Apologies, you are correct. The subject of the thread might be
misleading like that; at least in my case it was. I thought that you
requested peer review for a new *suckless* software.
Received on Sun Oct 27 2024 - 09:17:00 CET