Re: [dwm] st

On 18:28 Tue 08 Aug , Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> today I did some research on the terminal side. I found
> xvt-1.0.tar.Z back from 1992, which looks like a good starting
> point (however, it already contained much clunk I don't plan for
> st).
>
> Current st sources depend on this old xvt (thus the VT102
> emulation has no color support and some other oddities), but I'm
> quite sure it is possible, to get a working terminal < 4kSLOC
> which is fast and reliable.
>
> You can test the current development state (it's only a hacked
> up xvt) from
>
> hg clone http://10kloc.org/cgi-bin/hgwebdir.cgi/st
>
> (currently it consists of 3500 kSLOC)
>
> If you have access/no some other tiny terminal implementations,
> please let me know. Looking into eterm, rxvt, xterm, urxvt
> and libvte made me sick. They consist of totally retarded and
> fucked up source code.
>
> I also looked into the 9term source of p9p, but that is too
> p9-oriented already (and I want a replacement for existing
> terminals with VT102 support, at least as an option).
>
> Any hints, also via privmail are welcome.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361
>
Well, I am going to be the first to ask if UNIX98 pty scheme could be
used rather than the BSD ptyxx/ttyxx scheme be used. I tried looking
for stuff on BSD tty's and I found them to be, well defunct. I looked
into xterm source (what I had laying around) and found pty.h which gives
openpty(), and I was about to start modifying st to use this, but then I
realized that I am a tard and it would take me a year to do this.

So that is my unprofessional opinion. Either way, st could be a very
nice alternative to current terminal emulators.

Cheers,

Jack
Received on Wed Aug 09 2006 - 07:26:29 UTC