Re: [dwm] st

I may have found the source code for a 1987 release of xterm, or at
the least, a method to track down old source files easily.

http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sources/X/apps/xterm-6.6B.php

If you do a google search "xterm 1990" (without the quotes) or "xterm
1989" and so on, it does seem to yield good results containing source
code within the top 10 results.

--
Stephen [LAN358.com]
On 8/9/06, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_10kloc.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:25:57AM -0500, John Norton wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Actually the final version will use both, depending which OS in
> use. The Unix98 pts are the way to go nowadays.
>
> But maybe people misread my announcement. st is _NOT_ finished,
> it is in the beginning, even if it works to some extend (due to
> the xvt-bits). And I asked for implementation people might have
> lying around, which are not that bloated like
> xterm/eterm/rxvt/urxvt/aterm/wterm/mlterm and what not...
>
> I believe only very old implementations can be considered useful
> when learning how to write a sane terminal, because all existing
> ones suck like pain in the ass (actually I can't see any
> architecture in xterm, I see more CPP than anything else and I
> doubt there is anyone who actually understands what xterm is
> doing all along...)
>
> Regards,
> --
>  Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361
>
> _______________________________________________
> dwm mailing list
> dwm_AT_10kloc.org
> http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dwm
>