On 11 Nov 2011, Weeble wrote:
I always feel kind of guilty for not being better at reading Haskell. I actually really enjoyed it at university, and I have a great fondness for functional programming. I have no philosophical objections to it. I just find it very hard to guess what an unfamiliar piece of code does.
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.
I've tried a few others, but not dwm. I think I tried awesome. I haven't tried anything I liked more than xmonad. If anything were to steal me away from xmonad, it would need to match the flexibility and either make it easier to configure or provide compelling features (e.g. a tiling compositing WM to do zooming or pretty highlighting). I wouldn't trade off xmonad's features just for easier configuration.
Point taken. You are obviously much more sophisticated in computer terms than me - I have no formal instruction at all and have just picked things up, or not, as I went along. Haskell was a pretty tough nut for me and I would have to put in a lot of work to get even a slight acquaintence with it. That's not to say that it wouldn't be worth while, but life is short, art long ... -- Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux http://www.acampbell.org.uk - sample my ebooks at http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/acampbell