I am very if my questions are stupid. I am not clever man. And I am not
productive in any way. I have not proposed any change yet. I do not want
to start a flamewar. I have never used sloccount - thank you for the
tip. I will try to learn it and use it. I am not here to disrupt the
suckless world domination. I am not pretending to be able to argue, for
I am not. I am just an ordinary stupid user of dwm, curious about future
evolving of dwm. I only wonder if dwm will become larger and I would
also like to hear your opinions on code length versus smart and small
constructions. I am very sorry to made you disgusted by my rough
foolishness.
mkopta
On 10/30/2011 09:01 AM, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
Greetings.
Martin Kopta wrote:
"dwm is only a single binary, and its source code is intended to never exceed
2000 SLOC." (http://dwm.suckless.org/)
$ wc< dwm.c
2069 6745 52319
$
First 25 LOC is license and there is some whitespace too, however dwm.c is
obviously somewhere around 2 kSLOC.
1) I wonder if the rule of 2 kSLOC is still valid.
2) Does that mean dwm won't gain any more features?
3) Does that mean the code will be cut short to make place for another features?
4) Should be the code made smaller by witty constructions or do you prefer
boring and obvious constructions (which are generaly longer)?
5) Will be the limit of 2 kSLOC lifted up?
Thank you for answering and your opinions.
I am sorry, but I have to ask: Why are you asking five stupid questions?
Are you productive in any way? Did you propose a change yet? Are you try-
ing to start a flamewar? Did you ever use sloccount? Are you from some
intelligence agency to disrupt the suckless world domination? Why are you
trying to pretend to be able to argue?
Sincerely,
Christoph Lohmann
