7 ms·
I'm not sure what kind of "Hello World" clients you're comparing, but if you check the Wayland backends in Gtk/Qt, you will actually find them to be smaller tha
by cycloptic 6y ago
I'm not sure what kind of "Hello World" clients you're comparing, but if you check the Wayland backends in Gtk/Qt, you will actually find them to be smaller than the respective X11/XCB backends there, for various reasons.
- sprash 6y agoI'm specifically not talking about toolkits. I'm talking about a "simple" native Wayland client. Try to write one and witness utter insanity.
- cycloptic 6y agoCan you be more specific about what are you comparing this to? An X client with similar functionality would likely be longer and require several X extensions.
- jude- 6y ago> you will actually find them to be smaller than the respective X11/XCB backends there, for various reasons. It doesn't seem surprising to me. As X.org has gained extensions over the last 30 years, toolkits that speak X11 find themselves having to decide which extensions they'd like to use. Adding flexibility on this naturally leads to a bigger feature matrix. Of course, the toolkits are also free to drop support for X servers that don't have those extensions, which in turn would shrink the X11 backend. I have no doubt that in 30 years, they'll have a similarly-sized feature matrix for all the Wayland extensions they'll want to support.
- cycloptic 6y agoOr perhaps by then we will have moved onto another protocol that's even simpler.
- jude- 6y agoBetter idea: fix the bad life choices that got us to this point, so we don't have to keep re-living them. What a concept!
- cycloptic 6y agoI think we would all love it if we could magically fix every bug or design flaw in existence with a wave of the hand, unfortunately in real life it takes time and experience to do things right.