3 ms·

Yeah, reading a single file will not have a noticable impact, but we all know it will not stop at a single file. Before you know it a full blown web browser is

Yeah, reading a single file will not have a noticable impact, but we all know it will not stop at a single file. Before you know it a full blown web browser is included. The suckless philosophy is pretty extreme, but I'm grateful there are people exploring this space.

waheoo 6y ago
Yea people seem to be quite critical of this when its not like they have to use it. Do people act this way if you do LFS?
mikepurvis 6y ago
I think that's the key thing. It's not about config, it's the fact that the "plugins" are all compiled in as well— meanwhile over here in the real world we have there are entire programs and methodologies dedicated to managing directories of vimscript files, and sharing your personal dotfiles directory on github is a thing.
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  With suckless you don't have your dotfiles on GitHub, but your fork and then you have to keep close to upstream all the time. Else they might cause a merge hell later ...
- karatestomp 6y ago
  And then pretty soon the plugins are in one or more scripting languages (probably JavaScript) and your scripting subsystem is 100x the size of all of dwm.
tutfbhuf 6y ago
> it will not stop at a single file. Before you know it a full blown web browser is included There are real world examples like bspwm (my favorite window manger), that proves you wrong. It is configurable via config file and is as "suckless" as it could be.