2010/3/3 Anders Andersson <pipat...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:38 PM, yy <yiyu....@gmail.com> wrote: >> Since Go was released I have been playing with it. Is there any >> interest in the Go port of dwm? > > What would be the benefits of porting dwm to a new language? From my > point of view, dwm is already functional and mature, porting it over > to Go doesn't sound very constructive. > > // pipe > >
I agree there are no inmediate benefits, but there is an incomplete port in the repo (almost nothing) and I was asking if there was any interest in finishing it. Anselm said, when Go was released, that he was considering using Go for future suckless project. Although later he decided he would wait until the language was more mature (which I think was a right decission) I would consider porting dwm as a first (experimental, if you want) step in that direction, not a final goal. Anyway, if there is no interest in the idea, that is perfectly fine, and I won't arguee any more. There are many interesting projects. I just thought I'd let it drop. @pancake: I would use xgb, which implements the X protocol, not C bindings. In any way, I doubt you could notice the speed difference between a Go and a C version of dwm (at least, not running it in normal conditions; of course you could launch thousands of windows to see which one is faster, but that would be even more stupid than porting dwm to Go). @Anselm: I agree a MTA would be a good fit for Go. I would not apply for that one, but it could be included in the ideas list. A werc port would be interesting, I'd like to know uriel's opinion. -- - yiyus || JGL . 4l77.com
