Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

StumpWM: A complete window manager in Lisp

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: StumpWM: A complete window manager in Lisp

#41

Post by latiera »

Steltek wrote: post #34
enupten wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incompatibilities between Schemes is one for starters.

The core Scheme language seems pretty small compared to CL so compatibility might not be the best argument to make. The best you can say about CL is that it was designed with the expectation of incompatibility. For libraries, CL has the same problems as Scheme so it's a wash. I hit this keenly when interacting with the OS (POSIX calls, mostly).

No, CL doesn't have the same problems as Scheme, not by a long shot. See Quicklisp or cliki.net even. All these libraries (Quicklisp alone has 1000+ libraries last I checked) work perfectly fine on _multiple_ CL implementations.

You doing work on Linux and need a very fast compiler? Use SBCL, 3rd party libraries continue to work (unless they're platform specific)

Doing work on OSX or Windows? Use CCL. 3rd party libraries continue to work (unless they're platform specific).

This flexibility is absent from the Scheme world, with the myriad slightly incompatible implementations and extremely fragmented library space. The emergence of Quicklisp for Common Lisp was so important that it alone KILLED Scheme for any sort of practical use. For most cases, one has not the slightest incentive to stray from using Common Lisp these days, and if he does, he better have a good reason.

What is the equivalent for Scheme? The SRFI hell? _shudder_

Re: StumpWM: A complete window manager in Lisp

#42

Post by dllthomas »

latiera wrote: post #40
davexunit wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I was mistaken about the SLIME integration. I only used a primitive REPL. The rest of your response is total garbage. Guile is a really good Scheme implementation, imo.

Depends what you mean by really good Scheme implementation. Guile is a GNU project, which means that if you care about (say) Windows ( gasp ), you're shit out of luck. The same used to be true about OSX 2-3 years ago, I haven't bothered to check again since then. Coupled with the fact, that maybe 2-3? people are actively working on Guile (guess what platform they're focusing on), and that pretty much nobody is using…

"Guile is a GNU project, which means that if you care about (say) Windows (gasp), you're shit out of luck."

Are you using StumpWM on windows?

Re: StumpWM: A complete window manager in Lisp

#43

Post by latiera »

dllthomas wrote: post #42
latiera wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what you mean by really good Scheme implementation. Guile is a GNU project, which means that if you care about (say) Windows ( gasp ), you're shit out of luck. The same used to be true about OSX 2-3 years ago, I haven't bothered to check again since then. Coupled with the fact, that maybe 2-3? people are actively working on Guile (guess what platform they're focusing on), and that pretty much nobody is using…

"Guile is a GNU project, which means that if you care about (say) Windows (gasp), you're shit out of luck." Are you using StumpWM on windows?

I am addressing Guile being in my view one of the worst Scheme implementations out there, StumpWM has nothing to do with this. Being tied to, effectively, a single platform does.

Re: StumpWM: A complete window manager in Lisp

#44

Post by qbrass »

josteink wrote: post #38
profquail wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not write the window manager itself in Haskell (e.g., xmonad [1]) to take advantage of Haskell's type system, and provide extension points to allow users to tweak the desktop environment in the language of their choice -- for example, Scheme [2] or Python [3]? [1]: http://xmonad.org/ [2]: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/husk-scheme [3]: https://github.com/bjpop/berp

Why not write the product in language X and then make it extensible via language Y? Well... For one it wouldn't be the emacs of window managers. If you want to go the full mile, you should go the full mile. Trying to do half a mile subset and hoping it is the right subset gets tiresome pretty quickly. I deeply respect them for doing it this way.

>Well... For one it wouldn't be the emacs of window managers.

Emacs is some primitives written in C wrapped by a massive amount of Elisp extensions.

Re: StumpWM: A complete window manager in Lisp

#45

Post by dllthomas »

latiera wrote: post #43
dllthomas wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Guile is a GNU project, which means that if you care about (say) Windows (gasp), you're shit out of luck." Are you using StumpWM on windows?

I am addressing Guile being in my view one of the worst Scheme implementations out there, StumpWM has nothing to do with this. Being tied to, effectively, a single platform does.

Sure. I just think it's a little weird to demand portability from something whose raison d'être is as an extension language for its host OS, in a context where we were originally discussing an extension language for something that is likewise non-portable.

Re: StumpWM: A complete window manager in Lisp

#46

Post by omaranto »

profsnuggles wrote: post #31
omaranto wrote: post #23

Does anyone have experience with both StumpWM and i3? How do they compare? I'm happy with i3, but am curious about other similar window managers.

I would say stick with i3 unless you are really a fan of lisp. I used StumpWM for years until I discovered i3, however a few months ago I switched back to StumpWM. The floating layer in stump is quite frankly terrible. Pop up dialogs often act oddly. Yesterday I was updating ebooks in Calibre menus were appearing full screen and the progress dialog would grab focus and pop to the front on every tick. These are the ty…

Thanks! I'll stick with i3 even though I am a fan of lisp, because it did what I wanted with very little configuration.

Re: StumpWM: A complete window manager in Lisp

#47

Post by enupten »

Steltek wrote: post #34
enupten wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incompatibilities between Schemes is one for starters.

The core Scheme language seems pretty small compared to CL so compatibility might not be the best argument to make. The best you can say about CL is that it was designed with the expectation of incompatibility. For libraries, CL has the same problems as Scheme so it's a wash. I hit this keenly when interacting with the OS (POSIX calls, mostly).

Yes, I'm sure that's what's behind the new R7RS.
Post reply on HN