Allen S. Rout [2011.11.10 1539 -0500]:
On 11/10/2011 12:34 PM, Anthony Campbell wrote:
Have you looked at dwm, written in C? It was the forerunner of xmonad and functionally and visually the two are quite similar. I was able to modify it pretty easily by editing config.h and patching the code even though I know no C.
While I'm still also an outsider, I figure I can say this:
Posting signs to the help list for X that folks should use competing product Y is likely to eventually generate friction. Seeing the comment I experience an awkward embarrassment, like seeing a fellow guest insult the host's cooking. I'd suggest it would be more polite to make that reply private.
As for being mystified by haskell itself: I share some of that befuddlement, but take it as an interesting tinkering opportunity. Playing in a domain which I know well, with an unfamiliar toolset, is pleasant. So I don't anticipate being an outsider long. :)
I like your attitude, Allen. We'll make a Haskeller of you yet ;) Back on topic, I don't really understand why xmonad continually gets so much heat for being implemented and configured in Haskell. I understand that Haskell is a language that's very different from the vast majority of languages out there that differ mostly in syntax but not in what's easy to express in them and what's not. And, indeed, when I first started to learn Haskell, the learning curve was steep to say the least. Now, however, I appreciate the advantages that result from implementing xmonad in Haskell and using the same language for its configuration: I just slapped together a fairly complex new extension module for xmonad, and it took me two evenings. Trying to do the same in a language like C/C++, which doesn't provide the same high level of abstraction, would have been painful if not impossible in the same time frame, at least for me. Then I would have had to support parsing of new configuration constructs, if the configuration language is some custom-made home brew, or at least export the right interface, if lua or something similar was used to configure the WM. Arguably, much of this may still simply be a matter of personal preference and not an objective reason why Haskell may have been a good language to choose for implementing xmonad. However, that's beside the point. I also like openbox very much, which is configured using an XML configuration file, and I detest XML. Do I go screaming to the openbox developers and complain about having to use XML to configure the window manager? No. It was the developers' choice and it is pointless to argue about it because they won't go back and revert their choice unless they see a really good reason for it. If I like the window manager enough, I get over whatever I don't like about how to configure it and learn what I need to use it effectively, even if it means to learn Haskell (you actually won't have to learn much Haskell to configure xmonad). If the configuration syntax bothers me enough to detract me from the window manager, I move on and find one that suits me better. Cheers, Norbert