| ▲ | DrPhish 3 days ago |
| Out of curiosity, what was the showstopper on dwm? |
|
| ▲ | spookie a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| I tend to have one hand holding a pen on a drawing tablet. I could customise any wm to be controlled with just the left side of the keyboard obviously but I fear I would have arthritis from doing that. I'm half joking, I did use i3 for a few years, and have tried many others (bspwm comes to mind). But currently it makes no sense to use keyboard centric wms of any kind. |
|
| ▲ | oguz-ismail 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > dwm is customized through editing its source code |
| |
| ▲ | nextos 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Sounds scary but it's giving you some compile-time guarantees about correctness. StumpWM and XMonad do the same and they are quite easy to use, especially the former. They also lead to very space-efficient setups. Windows can be tightly packed. | | |
| ▲ | rhabarba 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | StumpWM is in a special position here as "compile-time" on Common Lisp is roughly the same thing as "runtime". | | |
| ▲ | nextos 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure, my statement referred to dwm, and it also applies to XMonad. |
| |
| ▲ | justmarc 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The only compile time guarantee you'd have by making changes is that it would run, not it being correct nor functional. | | |
| ▲ | nextos a day ago | parent [-] | | Static types do provide some guarantees as they rule out an entire class of runtime errors. In case of XMonad, since Haskell's type system is more expressive, the class of runtime errors ruled out at compile-time is broader. |
|
|
|
