Re: [dev] c++ compiler that rocks
> And why is it netiquette to have line breaks instead > of line wrapping client-side? I think someone has just volunteered to submit an RFC on how to send electronic mail between computers with a multitude of different architectures and screen sizes on the internet in the 21st century. Because, you know, the problem hasn't already been dealt with before, and the people who never dealt with it in the past have no reason for saying that things are best done in a certain way in the present.
[dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")
> C is definitely not suckless either, especially when it comes > to UB, but it's probably the language with least suck and > highest simplicity while giving the most power to the developer. Not too long ago I expressed support for C as a way to obtain very fast programs; the context is I work around people who are interested in stat mech, MCMC, simulations of complex systems, etc. A more experienced developer replied that in fact Go has comparable speed to C but does not lead to the same memory management challenges, thus should usually be preferred. It appears that most interest in C these days is from people who need to work with Arduinos. So, while we're on the (off-)topic of comparing the suckiness of various languages, what do people here think about Go? Kind regards, Tim
Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:36:56AM +0200, hiro wrote: > the popularity of a language amongst hipsters is quite irrelevant. C > is still the most used language in programs that actually do anything > (i.e. not some "app" written in a markup language). Lol, nice :) However, arguing to tradition and commonality is not by itself a good argument for the inherent qualities of a language. After all, apparently a third of big businesses still require COBOL programmers because of all the legacy code hanging around. Should the suckless community therefore advocate COBOL on these grounds? I'd be more interested to hear about what actually makes C inherently better than Go. I quite like C: it forces you to think about the machine a little bit, and it disincentivises large complicated programs. But I currently have no rebuttals against the Go argument other than ad hominems about hipsters ;)
Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")
Thanks FRIGN, both your emails have given me a bit to think about. ~ Tim
Re: [dev] running dwm from/with gnome
Dear all, There seems to be some confusion around xsessions etc, resulting in some factual errors in one or two recent emails. The following might be useful: http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/47359/what-is-xsession-for To summarise, .xsession is used as a custom script when starting X from a display manager such as GDM. If you start X in this way, .xinitrc will probably be ignored. An .xinitrc is relevant if you're starting X without a display manager. If you disable all your GDMs and LXDMs and SLiMs and the like, you'll be offered a TTY when you boot. Logging into the TTY and running `startx` will then run any instructions in your .xinitrc. In this case, .xsession should be ignored. I can't speak one way or the other for the .xsession file, but it is not necessary for .xinitrc to be set executable. I use the TTY/startx approach and my .xinitrc has mode 0600. Kind regards, Tim
Re: [dev] running dwm from/with gnome
> I'm not sure my other "factual error(s?)" was, but I would be happy to > be enlightened. Yeah, I wrote in a hurry. After sending it I thought it could have been worded better. The issues I noticed and was responding to were: 1. Uncertainty around whether .xinitrc would be recognised on session startup when using a display manager like GDM. 2. Assertion that .xinitrc and friends require the executable bit set. Whereas the second one *is* an error, the first was not, so I apologise for seeming condescending or snarky or unhelpfully critical or anything like that. ~ Tim
Re: [dev] JWM on website
Hi Pat, > Sure that it needs a bit of improvements... 1. I am not sure what problem JWM is trying to solve. 2. I do not think "improvements" will make it suck less. Certainly there is a place in the world for JWM, just as there is a place in the world for Openbox, Awesome, even Gnome and KDE. I used Gnome back in the day before trying out XFCE, then Openbox, then Awesome, then XMonad, before settling on dwm. Everyone has to start at their own starting point. But just because there is a place for something in the world doesn't mean it is built to suck less. Do you think the JWM devs would be keen to strip out all the XML cruft and go the dwm route, putting configs in a C header? I believe that is the kind of improvement you would need to see before a suckless nomination would make sense. ~ Tim
Re: [dev] JWM on website
> jwm needs to be simplified and optimized first. Giving a new birth name > ??WM... Well, make it happen. Show, don't tell. ~ Tim
Re: [dev] JWM on website
Hi Pat, > http://incise.org/not-so-tiny-window-managers.html On that list I see evilwm. Apparently it is stacking, and if I'm not mistaken it appears to have a similar size to dwm (maybe even smaller). So why propose JWM instead of EvilWM? ~ Tim
Re: [dev] JWM on website
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:31:53PM +0200, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote: > I just compile without xinerama, and dwm is slighty lighter than jwm. > If you stick to the minimum with jwm, it is not that heavy at all. This is > nice. > > Why jwm, because after chopping some lines into code, it can give a > nice minimalist fork. Sure. I am not saying JWM is bad. Compared to, say, Gnome, I am sure JWM is fantastic. However, this conversation is not about comparing JWM to the worst-case scenario. This conversation is about you nominating JWM for a mention on the suckless website. Problems with the conversation so far: 1. You nominated JWM for inclusion on the suckless website without giving good reasons why. 2. You have now switched to a different topic about forking JWM, again without giving good reasons why. In return: 1. It has been explained to you why JWM should not be considered suckless software, but you have not acknowledged this explanation. 2. It appears that EvilWM obviates the need for forking JWM, but you have not acknowledged the suggestion of using EvilWM. 3. Someone has already called you out for being a troll. I was willing to extend a more charitable assessment, but you have failed to acknowledge their concerns and you have failed to correct your behaviour. Please aspire to a more focused style of discussion in which you actually engage with people. ~ Tim
Re: [dev] JWM on website
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:30:17AM +0200, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote: > MIght you have a well-balanced discussion, not over-too-serious or the > other side? simply just in the middle, balanced. A nice sentiment, but indeed for it to be a discussion it should be two-sided. At the moment you are not listening to what anyone is telling you. When someone says something, either agree or disagree (with reasons); going off on some new tangent without acknowledging what other people have said is to show you don't care about the discussion. If you want it to be light-hearted, make a joke. If you want it to be a discussion, make sure you engage with people on your discussion points. ~ Tim
Re: [dev] JWM on website
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:48:05AM +0200, hadrien.lac...@openmailbox.org wrote: > I'd say cwm instead of evilwm. When I had to use an ant screen laptop, it was > pretty nice. The only thing I lacked is workspaces. Ah, someone who knows how to have a discussion, how lovely! :D ~ Tim
Re: [dev] Sane office alternative?
> what do you use to communicate with the part of the world (a majority, > unfortunately) who uses suckish formats such as .doc(x), .od[tspg] or > whatever? If Office is bloated, LibreOffice ain't slim, and people > keep sending me word documents :/ When people send me word documents, I have my mailcap set up to run catdoc or docx2txt on that shit. Similar plain text rendering exists for other file formats such as (puke) Excel. If this does not answer your question then I invite you to express it more clearly. ~ Tim
Re: [dev] Writing subtitles for videos
> Like trolling on mailing lists, thank you. Unlike the OP's four paragraph feature request against software which suckless obviously doesn't offer, I have at least found isabella's content entertaining and concise. While I'm sure it was kind of you to step in to defend your bro, I would have preferred if your bro had demonstrated the simple ability to report what they found unsatisfactory about existing software and provided their first stab at some C code aimed at addressing the perceived problems. ~ Tim
Re: [dev] Writing subtitles for videos
> We are really glad to know you've been entertained. I think you mean "I am really glad". > this would have been more constructive to address directly Thomas to ask > about his needs if you're interested at all in this discussion. It sounds like you want to have a discussion about how to do things constructively. Are you sure you would have anything to contribute to such a discussion, or are you just going to give me a four paragraph feature request without actually contributing anything yourself? > Thank you for the noise, bro. No, please, the thanks must go to *you*, for adding noise to call me out on making noise about you making noise. Noise ad infinitum, all because you called out isabella for calling out Thomas for presenting a four paragraph feature request. Your bat.
Re: [dev] Writing subtitles for videos
> Holy shit. Is everyone on here a fucking child trying to score points about > something that really doesn't matter? People like you are the reason why > Usenet died. > > Grow up. > > If you want to know how to deal with something like an adult: He said, resurrecting shit that had already fizzled out, in order to indulge in juvenile flaming, which I'm given to understand is some great sin. Fuck off and take your own advice.
