> No export function. If you really need one, just use a shell script with xdotool and your favorite screenshot application. > Slides with exuberant amount o

> No export function. If you really need one, just use a shell script with xdotool and your favorite screenshot application. > Slides with exuberant amount of lines or characters produce rendering glitches intentionally to prevent you from holding bad presentations. This reads like a parody of Suckless software. Why would anyone use this over the most basic alternative with something like Markdown or HTML in conjunction with a PDF viewer? It's not as if anyone using computers now doesn't have a PDF viewer, so I fail to see the practical utility in re-implementing a tiny fraction of its functionality. If I may be so bold and scathing, I would like to generalise this to Suckless as a whole. Their issue seems to be with "bloat" in modern computers, but we have the disk space and CPU cycles to accommodate featureful software written in safe and simple programming languages. Writing software only in C and putting a strict line limit on it simply isn't necessary. The code produced will be of a lower quality and the software produced will have insufficient features. I stand by my belief that it is is possible to write software that provides many features, to do so with a responsive and pleasing UI, in a manner that does not excessively use system resources, and with code that is open to extension and modification. In short: good software is possible. Yet the Suckless style seems to ignore many of the aspects of good software under the false assertion that they come at the cost of others. A piece of software that lacks features is worse than a bloated piece of software with sufficient features as the latter can actually achieve what user wants, though both are worse than non-bloated software with sufficient features.