3 ms·
I'm assuming you're unfamiliar with suckless[0], which GP wasn't using as an adjective, but as the name of a project. There's a philosophy behind that decision
by klez 3y ago
I'm assuming you're unfamiliar with suckless[0], which GP wasn't using as an adjective, but as the name of a project.
There's a philosophy behind that decision, which you (and, in part, I) can disagree with. But they do have their reasons to prefer avoiding configuration files.
[0] http://suckless.org/ http://suckless.org/
- jraph 3y agoI am familiar with suckless, but that's useful to mention it explicitly for those here who aren't. Of course I childishly played with the name (but that's their fault picking this name :-)). And of course one can disagree. I like their goal of minimalism and simplicity. I disagree that developer's simplicity should be at the expense of the user's convenience. Computers are already incredibly complex things, and are here to automate things and ease our lives as users. Hopefully a program is written once and used many times, so usage should be optimized, even if it makes the developer's lives a bit harder (I would say interesting :-)). Making software lean and lightweight is part of it (and that's where I agree with suckless), we owe this to our users instead of forcing them to experience slowness and to upgrade their hardware often. Of course that's my view. (I'm a dev)