Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:01:28 -0400 From: Glen Barber <glen.j.barber@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GUI Suggested? Message-ID: <4C9BF868.9000805@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100924003120.GA19235@guilt.hydra> References: <3368057398-783131724@intranet.com.mx> <20100923152023.GA14903@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <AANLkTikECugKYAg%2Bt%2BQv%2BSGBgdfSg4kR1eAQO1Yffq8U@mail.gmail.com> <20100924003120.GA19235@guilt.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/23/10 8:31 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:24:58PM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: >> >> If you like xmonad, check out scrotwm. It's inspired by xmonad, >> lightweight, written in C by oBSD dev, actively maintained, and >> vim-like (among other things ;-). > > Why is "written in C" considered such a great benefit by the Scrotwm > developer(s)? Earlier today, I read this on the site: > > "On the other hand xmonad has great defaults, key bindings and > xinerama support but is crippled by not being written in C." > > What's up with that? How does Haskell "cripple" xmonad? > My interpretation is that if you will be compiling software for a UNIX-like system, you will probably have some variant of a C compiler already available. Read as "just build it and go" versus "just build its dependencies, then build it and go." Cheers, -- Glen Barber
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C9BF868.9000805>