Allen S. Rout [2011.11.14 1335 -0500]:
On 11/10/2011 05:13 PM, Norbert Zeh wrote:
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.
IMO, The problem is simply the learning curve to get started. I've been failing to convince people to work with EMACS on that basis for decades. The two cases actually have deep congrence: Complex and subtle applications with a minimal core, customized (and mostly composed) of functional-language forms on top of that core.
My colleagues always get amazed at what I use emacs for ;) The learning curve was steep indeed, but now I wouldn't want to miss its power. The same goes for xmonad.
No real barrier between a 'collection of tweaks' and a 'contrib module' and an 'extension'.
Indeed. This is exactly where I think xmonad's strength lies: I have a full-blown programming language at my disposal even in my configuration file. This makes the possibilities to tweak it exactly how I want it limitless. Once my tweaks mature into something general that would be worthwhile to share with the community, the fact that the language I implemented my tweaks in is exactly the same the core and the contrib modules are written in makes turning my tweaks into a contrib module so much easier. Cheers, Norbert