On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Donald Allen <donaldcal...@gmail.com> wrote: > But dbus is out of your control. If you need it, you need to accept > how it behaves. We're talking about code *you* control.
dbus is most certainly in my control. I can remove it, and then I lose functionality, or I can replace it with something simpler, which I have endeavored to do. > I think you've digressed into the realm of well-architected code that > is as simple and lean as it can be, when were talking about > programming languages originally. I think the suckless philosophy is > about the former, not the latter. And I heartily agree with it. I run > Slackware and dwm. No Windows, no Mac, no gnome, no kde, no xfce. No > Ubuntu. I want what I need and nothing more. That describes my systems as well; slackware and dwm. But I do maintain that choosing the wrong programming language -- specifically, choosing an interpreted or vm-based language -- can lead to crappy programs no matter how clean and well-designed the application itself may be. > I think a desire for simplicity and good architecture is orthogonal to > the language you implement a good (or bad) architecture in. That depends in large part on whether the language itself embodies simplicity and good architecture (again, especially when the language in question relies on a non-native bytecode interpreter). -- # Kurt H Maier
