"Allen S. Rout"
Hi; I'm contemplating a tiling WM, and am drawn to xmonad because its customisation language is its implementation language; I'm long accustomed to this in e.g. EMACS, so I feel it'd be a good fit.
You should also consider StumpWM, it's more like Emacs (in that it can be hacked at runtime) than Xmonad is: http://www.nongnu.org/stumpwm/
But a friend, who's otherwise an outspoken Haskell advocate, put xmonad down in favor of awesome for reasons I'll summarize as dependency hell'.
I'm interested in the perspective of the xmonad clan on this: If I pick up xmonad simply because I want a hackable WM, how much Haskell janitorial work will I be taking on? Is there a straightfoward and broadly accepted base of package repositories? Are the participants in the module ecosystem pretty careful not to break stuff? Do current versions of various xmonad packages all depend on the current versions of their dependencies?
If you install cabal (a Haskell package manager), dependencies are not a problem. I have certainly noticed very few. And even if you do not, rather using adistribution-provided xmonad/xmonad-contrib packages, those potential problems should already be taken care of. In fact, when configuring xmonad, you rarely care about new versions of things - there's enough already-written stuff to pick from that it'll keep you busy for quite a while. -- \ Troels /\ Henriksen