3 ms·
Anyone want to explain what might be better about stumpwm than awesomewm?
by daurnimator 11y ago
Anyone want to explain what might be better about stumpwm than awesomewm?
- eudox 11y agoPersonally, I don't really use StumpWM itself, I just use a window manager written in the programming language I know best -- and that just happens to be StumpWM. If my favourite language was Lua, I'd use AwesomeWM. If I could tolerate C for such a high-level application, I'd use dwm.
- jethro_tell 11y agoLua ... AwesomeWM right?
- eudox 11y agoThanks, corrected it.
- serf 11y ago>If I could tolerate C for such a high-level application, I'd use dwm. I don't use dwm, but it sure is neat to have your config rolled into the executable itself.
- eudox 11y agoYou can easily do this with StumpWM, and the process is the same: you write a config file, add it to the stumpwm.asd file, and compile every time you need to make a change.
- baldfat 11y agoIf you want a tiled window manager and don't need to touch any programming language use i3
- cisstrd 11y agoLike I've written in a comment here, very often programming language preference decides about what wm is best for someone. So if you are into CL, then StumpWM is a nice thing to configure, hack, nicely integrated with a Lisp Interpreter, no interference with Emacs Shortcuts (default StumpWM shortcuts keep out of the way), you will feel at home in the community, et cetera... I've tried lots of different tiling window managers, and most of them can be configured to behave quite similarly / to have a very similar workflow. So the reasons for choosing one over the other are sometimes very subtle.