Re: [dwm] What happened here?

On 1/20/09, andrew <alindberg_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> Specify commands as a list of argument strings?

SHCMD("put your posix compliant shell script here")

> I don't even recognize the key array as C code ... {.v = dmenucmd} },

to use dwm you need to know the c language
..specifically c99

> Tagmasks? Why are we forcing the user to do this in binary?

why were we forcing the user to write tag labels properly?
it's not like you cannot use
#define T(n) (1<<(n))

> The website lists clarity as a feature. Clarity!

clarity + quality > userfriendlyness
(so no half-assed soltutions because users don't know c)

options:
- no config
- new config syntax
- .h as config (syntax, parser, checking,.. for free)

> As for only having to learn C code to edit the config, I know C
> reasonably well, but I get bad vibes from config.h, I think I'd rather
> try to learn Lua.

seems "reasonably well" is not enough

> I understand that a core tenet of the suckless development is
> efficiency.. but it seems to me that at some point between 3.x and 5.3

i dont think so

core tenet:
low complexity => less bugs
and
low complexity == consistent style + short code

> this usurped usability in its entirety. The concept of "the header
> file is the config file" has appeared to outlive it's sensibility.
> Let's face it, a C header was never meant to be a scalable
> configuration file for something as flexible as a tagging, tiling
> window manager.

true
may be the config should be less flexible

> now, for the user. Because, to me, dwm was primarily about getting the
> window manager out of my way, but looking at the most recent config.h,
> I can tell it won't fit that bill for me anymore.

fine
(dwm is not supposed to be configured all the time)

recommendations and solutions are welcome
Received on Tue Jan 20 2009 - 12:49:08 UTC