Re: [dwm] dwm: request to discuss

From: Maxim Vuets <>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:35:16 +0300

2008/8/29, Donald Chai <>:

>> I think that mouse is not really important for dwm status bar.
>> So we can neglect of such feedback.
>> I can not agree we you that shared libraries and some ABI is so bad.
>> But agree that it is too heavy for such program as dwm. It is useless
>> here. On the other hand, extending via code patching is wierd.
>> Especially when you need to apply more than one patch.
> You might enjoy reading this interview with Don Knuth:
> Basically, "re-editable" code is better than reusable code (to him).

Thanks a lot for the link, I'll look it a bit later.
My 5 cents (: Knuth is a mathematician. All that theory is good, but
it is not always applicable in practice. IIRC, Eric Raymond says
that binary RPC is evil, threads are evil etc. But look: we are using
Apache httpd with threads and mod_*.so, PAM... So every
technical approach is good and useful in some exact context of its
usage. Threads are evil for dwm (: but is good for highload network
server. And so on.
Just for a note: yes, .so for dwm is evil. I've already said it.
But unix-way IPC---looks not so bad, I think.

> What version of dwm are you using?


> dwm has had two workspaces/desktops since I've been using it
> (admittedly not very long). Press MOD-Tab to switch between them.

Hm, right. In fact it is just previous set of tags. Not actualy that I want
to get. And does not work with more than two desktops.

Hoc est simplicissimum!
Received on Fri Aug 29 2008 - 07:35:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Aug 29 2008 - 07:36:04 UTC