Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:31:20 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GUI Suggested? Message-ID: <20100924003120.GA19235@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikECugKYAg%2Bt%2BQv%2BSGBgdfSg4kR1eAQO1Yffq8U@mail.gmail.com> References: <3368057398-783131724@intranet.com.mx> <20100923152023.GA14903@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <AANLkTikECugKYAg%2Bt%2BQv%2BSGBgdfSg4kR1eAQO1Yffq8U@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:24:58PM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote:
>=20
> 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?
--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
--bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkyb8VgACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUdRwCeNMeNmttwp/AdfwVPgMjMIfyH
2sEAnj8qxPhvKo7EnaydO98d1CrWw4Xd
=aIG2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100924003120.GA19235>