Re: [wmii] Preparations for 3.5

From: Denis Grelich <>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:50:52 +0100

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 19:32:55 +0100
thomas <> wrote:

> 2006/10/31, Denis Grelich <>:
> > > A somewhat configurable C-replacement could offer a simple and
> > > fast replacement. If somebody needs more flexibility the options
> > > are modifying the source or using a more powerful scripting
> > > language (and coping with their overhead).
> >
> > If you want a C wmiirc, you could as well have all of the config
> > in-source, or have a config file in some special format that is read
> > and parsed by wmiiwm. These could be options for wmii-4 though. For
> > 3.5 I definitely don't want to change the well-tested current
> > concept. Another approach would need much design and many
> > iterations.
> I know lots of people here speak C as a second language and despise sh
> and the coreutils ("Linux is crap, GNU folks are morons", etc.) but I
> may not be the only one who prefers writing a shell script as hacking
> a c file. One of the thing i do like about wmii is the ability to
> customize the wmiirc and status scripts. If I want wmiirc to do some
> stuff on startup or update the statusbar with a niceness of 19 or if I
> want to write shell functions() for the shortcuts, I can do that
> easily. If I want the statusbar to show me incoming email, no problem,
> etc.
> What would be the advantage of a C replacement? A cleaner code?
> Frankly I don't mind if wmiirc is not a masterpiece, so long as it
> works. A 0.017 second faster wmiirc? Idem, I really don't care about
> such speed optimizations, saving 1K RAM seems so pointless to me... As
> for the "more powerful scripting language", do I seriously need
> Python/Ruby/whatever to make the statusbar show me the volume or the
> currently played song?

Just as a sidenote: the performance increase would be perceptible. I
can't find the link atm, but someone did benchmark this and found
pretty high differences for different implementations, two-digit

> I'm not an expert and maybe a part of wmiirc should be rewritten in C.
> So far, the decisions made about the design of wmii look really sound.
> But please, don't break the ability to customize wmii just to show off
> your proficiency in C or something like that.

This is not intended in any case. It's all about pragmatic solutions.

> Thanks a lot Denis for being the new maintainer, that is nice from
> you. I am also happy to see that others (like Stefan) keep
> contributing.
> Thomas

Received on Thu Nov 02 2006 - 22:51:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:16:30 UTC