On 1 February 2010 11:02, Uriel <lost.gob...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Anselm R Garbe <ans...@garbe.us> wrote: >> I agree to all you said, except: >> >> On 31 January 2010 22:00, Uriel <lost.gob...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> No, it is not OK, the gratuitous fiddling with the .h files is one of >>> the most retarded things about dwm. >> >> If you know a better way, please let me know. The idea behind config.h >> is to provide a mechanism where people can customize and extend dwm >> without hacking into core dwm.c. > > Like with auto*hell, the idea is retarded, so the implementation can't not > suck.
It's not like configure, it simply eases source modifications/patching. >> People have different taste regarding the colors, fonts, layout algorithms, >> shortcuts etc. > > People are retards that should get a life, and developers that can't > pick bearable colors should not pick colors (just ask for advice from > an artists as Rob did for acme and rio). Layout algorithms are more an > intrinsic part of the application and should not be considered 'an > option' (and configuring them via a .h file is plain idiotic), > shortcuts are part of the UI which should be sane and consistent. Well if you ask artists they will come up with gradients, translucency and other bullshit. I think the default color scheme in dwm is great. >> I know you will say there shouldn't be any options, but even werc has >> options ;) > > Werc has few (if any) options that are not intrinsically linked to > *functionality* whatever a page is a wiki or a blog is not an 'option' > it is simply a different functionality part of the same app, and > things like page titles are also an intrinsic part of the application > (just as an app name is not an 'option' in a window manager but an > intrinsic part of its functionality). Well I disagree, there is no real difference between werc's initrc[.local] and dwm's config.h. Cheers, Anselm
