6 ms·

Unreal – never knew XMonad was so small. It's only 1650 lines of code! tedkornish : dev/xmonad @ master :: cloc src 8 text files. 8 unique

by kornish 10y ago

Unreal – never knew XMonad was so small. It's only 1650 lines of code! tedkornish : dev/xmonad @ master :: cloc src 8 text files. 8 unique files. 0 files ignored. http://cloc.sourceforge.net v 1.64 T=0.03 s (244.6 files/s, 95612.1 lines/s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language files blank comment code ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Haskell 8 446 1028 1653 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUM: 8 446 1028 1653 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wz1000 10y ago
That is only the base library. Contrib and extras, where a lot of the useful stuff is defined are here: https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad-contrib https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad-contrib https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad-extras https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad-extras
- pvdebbe 10y ago
  On the other hand, xmonad has a remarkably well defined set of defaults so I for one am able to be very productive with them very well. My personal config provides stuff that I use maybe 3 % of the time.
aseipp 10y ago
That's extremely bloated. ;) For several years early on in its life, the entire XMonad core codebase was just under 500 lines of code. Of course, I believe the Zipper rewrite (many moons ago) was what increased the size somewhat, and it was for the best... It's even small enough someone did a formalized Coq proof of the core data structures (i.e. they proved that XMonad cannot 'crash' in several ways.) :) I have used it very fondly almost for a decade now (since 0.0!) and it is a good piece of software. I don't think I've changed my config more than 10 lines in like 7 years...
- aseipp 10y ago
  If anyone wants to see the old school cool: check out XMonad 0.3. This was a good release, trust me: $ git clone https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad.git && cd xmonad $ git checkout -b old v0.3 $ cloc Config.hs* Main.hs Operations.hs StackSet.hs 5 text files. 5 unique files. 1 file ignored. http://cloc.sourceforge.net v 1.60 T=0.01 s (561.3 files/s, 213300.6 lines/s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language files blank comment code ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Haskell 4 211 625 684 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUM: 4 211 625 684 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also take back what I said earlier. I have been using XMonad for almost exactly a decade, since 0.1 was released in April 2007, and I used the pre-release. So its 10th birthday is very close. I also think it's interesting to note that XMonad is a pretty good example of stable software that doesn't need to change much. Lots of tiling WMs probably fall in this category by some metric, I'd say. For example, the v0.3 version of XMonad had exactly 572 commits in its history at that point: https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad/commit/dede0a2ce91eebdb1c02402a35ac1b37bede6040 https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad/commit/dede0a2ce91eebdb1c02... The HEAD version of XMonad, 0.13, only has exactly 1,265 commits, at the time of this writing. But it has been released almost 10 years later. So that's only a little over 2x as many commits over the course of a decade, and roughly 3x more code at the core level. It does exactly what it needs to do -- so it hasn't needed to evolve much more than that. Files like StackSet (the most central data structure in XMonad) have almost not changed in 10 years, modulo some shuffling, comments, re-exports. That's quite nice, really. (Where all the extra code came from between 0.3 and 0.13 is left as an archaeology exercise to the reader.)
diminish 10y ago
xmonad source itself can be small but, running xmonad consumes a lot of memory due to huge ram/space requirements of the ghc (haskell) (edit I don't remember exactly what consumed so much memory). that's why i moved to i3 wm after years of xmonad use.
- tluyben2 10y ago
  I did the same thing. i3 is very nice so far.
- baldfat 10y ago
  I moved to i3 just for configuration ease. That you would move to save the difference in a tiled window manager might be a little over valuing the memory saved :) At least it isn't I left KDE bloat to go to Gnome when Gnome was actually having a larger foot print back in the day.
  - virtualwhys 10y ago
    Same, but moved from Awesome WM to i3. Config is simple but powerful, and i3 itself brings so much to the table out of the box that your customization footprint is going to be smaller than that of scriptable WMs.
    - arca_vorago 10y ago
      I tend to use xfce these days, but when I'm really getting sshdirty, I'm usually in i3, but I tried and still want to use awesome mostly because I try hard to favor GPL products, but i3 is just so easy and works without nearly as much work.
      - problems 10y ago
        Curious, why do you favor GPL over BSD as a user? You have all the same abilities with it, and a few additional ones too. The closed source forks for the BSD licensed projects... sure, don't use those but the projects themselves are good to go.
dmytrish 10y ago
Yep, it was a discovery for me that it's easier to go to the source code directly than to try to do something using documentation.
mikegerwitz 10y ago
Unfortunately, GHC isn't too small. Here's a recent example: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-02/msg00968.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-02/msg009...
- makmanalp 10y ago
  Wait, but can't you just ship the xmonad binaries rather than the source?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The configuration language is Haskell.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      Probably to great advantage of DWM where configuration requires recompilation but you can static link and distribute once you've compiled.
    - gwern 10y ago
      But the configuration is also compiled into the binary. And if you really need runtime configuration without the weight of GHC, well, Haskell is well known as an excellent language to write interpreters in... (I think someone already did that for Xmonad, actually.)

by kornish 10y ago

wz1000 10y ago

That is only the base library. Contrib and extras, where a lot of the useful stuff is defined are here: https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad-contrib https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad-contrib https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad-extras https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad-extras

pvdebbe 10y ago
On the other hand, xmonad has a remarkably well defined set of defaults so I for one am able to be very productive with them very well. My personal config provides stuff that I use maybe 3 % of the time.

aseipp 10y ago

That's extremely bloated. ;) For several years early on in its life, the entire XMonad core codebase was just under 500 lines of code. Of course, I believe the Zipper rewrite (many moons ago) was what increased the size somewhat, and it was for the best... It's even small enough someone did a formalized Coq proof of the core data structures (i.e. they proved that XMonad cannot 'crash' in several ways.) :) I have used it very fondly almost for a decade now (since 0.0!) and it is a good piece of software. I don't think I've changed my config more than 10 lines in like 7 years...

aseipp 10y ago
If anyone wants to see the old school cool: check out XMonad 0.3. This was a good release, trust me: $ git clone https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad.git && cd xmonad $ git checkout -b old v0.3 $ cloc Config.hs* Main.hs Operations.hs StackSet.hs 5 text files. 5 unique files. 1 file ignored. http://cloc.sourceforge.net v 1.60 T=0.01 s (561.3 files/s, 213300.6 lines/s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language files blank comment code ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Haskell 4 211 625 684 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUM: 4 211 625 684 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also take back what I said earlier. I have been using XMonad for almost exactly a decade, since 0.1 was released in April 2007, and I used the pre-release. So its 10th birthday is very close. I also think it's interesting to note that XMonad is a pretty good example of stable software that doesn't need to change much. Lots of tiling WMs probably fall in this category by some metric, I'd say. For example, the v0.3 version of XMonad had exactly 572 commits in its history at that point: https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad/commit/dede0a2ce91eebdb1c02402a35ac1b37bede6040 https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad/commit/dede0a2ce91eebdb1c02... The HEAD version of XMonad, 0.13, only has exactly 1,265 commits, at the time of this writing. But it has been released almost 10 years later. So that's only a little over 2x as many commits over the course of a decade, and roughly 3x more code at the core level. It does exactly what it needs to do -- so it hasn't needed to evolve much more than that. Files like StackSet (the most central data structure in XMonad) have almost not changed in 10 years, modulo some shuffling, comments, re-exports. That's quite nice, really. (Where all the extra code came from between 0.3 and 0.13 is left as an archaeology exercise to the reader.)

diminish 10y ago

xmonad source itself can be small but, running xmonad consumes a lot of memory due to huge ram/space requirements of the ghc (haskell) (edit I don't remember exactly what consumed so much memory). that's why i moved to i3 wm after years of xmonad use.

tluyben2 10y ago
I did the same thing. i3 is very nice so far.
baldfat 10y ago
I moved to i3 just for configuration ease. That you would move to save the difference in a tiled window manager might be a little over valuing the memory saved :) At least it isn't I left KDE bloat to go to Gnome when Gnome was actually having a larger foot print back in the day.
- virtualwhys 10y ago
  Same, but moved from Awesome WM to i3. Config is simple but powerful, and i3 itself brings so much to the table out of the box that your customization footprint is going to be smaller than that of scriptable WMs.
  - arca_vorago 10y ago
    I tend to use xfce these days, but when I'm really getting sshdirty, I'm usually in i3, but I tried and still want to use awesome mostly because I try hard to favor GPL products, but i3 is just so easy and works without nearly as much work.
    - problems 10y ago
      Curious, why do you favor GPL over BSD as a user? You have all the same abilities with it, and a few additional ones too. The closed source forks for the BSD licensed projects... sure, don't use those but the projects themselves are good to go.

dmytrish 10y ago

Yep, it was a discovery for me that it's easier to go to the source code directly than to try to do something using documentation.

mikegerwitz 10y ago

Unfortunately, GHC isn't too small. Here's a recent example: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-02/msg00968.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-02/msg009...

makmanalp 10y ago
Wait, but can't you just ship the xmonad binaries rather than the source?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The configuration language is Haskell.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    Probably to great advantage of DWM where configuration requires recompilation but you can static link and distribute once you've compiled.
  - gwern 10y ago
    But the configuration is also compiled into the binary. And if you really need runtime configuration without the weight of GHC, well, Haskell is well known as an excellent language to write interpreters in... (I think someone already did that for Xmonad, actually.)