Hi, i forked termbox [0] at an earlier version before much stupidity [1, 2].
Would suckless community be interested to adopt this repo? tty sucks
but ain't about to die soon...
[0] https://github.com/strake/termbox.c
[1]
https://github.com/nsf/termbox/commit/e1186c771347c396e47c33a570ffc38642226
On 25/02/2015, Eric Pruitt wrote:
> unwrapped
> lines are better since it lets the end-user choose what width they want
> their lines wrapped at.
This.
On 25/02/2015, Markus Teich wrote:
> Please wrap your lines to a majority approved sane length. Thanks.
Sanity is not a democracy.
On 04/02/2015, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> I'd rather be inclined to rewrite swerc as quark-addon
Why? I am using quark+swerc quite smoothly as is.
st with scrollback: https://github.com/strake/st
On 14/12/2014, Jonny Langley wrote:
> It adds just under 100 LOC, but means the shell scripts
> dmenu_{run,path} are unneeded.
; wc -l dmenu_^(run path)
2 dmenu_run
13 dmenu_path
15 total
;
On 11/12/2014, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Produces rendering errors in the last line when having output while
> scrolled up.
I can't reproduce this; what are you doing?
I merged jspricke's scrollback code into latest master:
https://github.com/strake/st
Tested briefly, seems to work.
On 28/11/2014, Martti Kühne wrote:
> I always have it in the back of my head that I want to make a slightly
> better C. Just to clean up some of the rough edges and fix some of the
> more egregious problems. But getting everything to fit, top to bottom,
> syntax, semantics, tooling, etc., might no
On 27/11/2014, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> • Unambiguous grammar
> • Low level
> • Tuples
> • Easy interface with C
Forgot one:
• Free declaration order
On 27/11/2014, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> The only implementation seems to be written in a pretty atrocious style:
> https://git
On 27/11/2014, FRIGN wrote:
> No, bloody you!
...
I'm proposing the language. If you want to claim that my language
won't work, and fill out the checklist, feel free; I'll be over here,
using it.
On 27/11/2014, FRIGN wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 15:47:08 -0500
> M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
>>
>
> Fill out the checklist[0] already (just copy/paste it in your
> mail-client and tick) ;)
Who? "You" is a 2nd-person pronoun.
On 27/11/2014, Wander Nauta wrote:
> What does your language have to offer? Is it safety? Expressiveness?
> Productivity? Ease of use?
• Unambiguous grammar
• Low level
• Tuples
• Easy interface with C
> Do K programs run faster than C programs?
Not in general.
> Also, what is a 'for loop afte
On 27/11/2014, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> This is very much a work in progress. In particular I not yet know how
> to do arrays, modules/includes, or macros sanely.
Or atomics.
Given the comments on alternatives to C lately on dev@ I thought this
a good time to introduce mine: http://k-lang.org/
The goal is a language appropriate for systems programs including
kernels, sans some flaws of C. This likely means no hidden heap
allocations.
This is very much a work in progre
On 27/11/2014, koneu wrote:
> Of course each "class" can only implement one interface.
Why? C lacking tuple types makes implementing more awkward but not impossible.
On 25/11/2014, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> I would be more interested in a Rust implementation of coreutils however.
Rust has some neat qualities but some bad qualities too, including
some ugly syntax.
On 25/11/2014, Markus Teich wrote:
> Please post the output of
>
> ldd $(which ls); du -h $(which ls)
$ ldd $(which ls); du -h $(which ls)
mksh: ldd: not found
0 /usr/bin/ls
$ ls -l /usr/bin/ls
lrwxrwxrwx1 strake users7 Aug 25 2013 /usr/bin/ls -> busybox
$ du -h /usr/bin/
On 25/11/2014, Jean-Christophe Petkovich wrote:
> When they are dynamically linked, they are small enough for my tastes.
Dynamic-linked system utilities, *barf*
On 23/11/2014, Henrique Lengler wrote:
> So what do you think, GCC is ok?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00193.html
If I want to see politics trump technics, I watch CPAC.
On 20/11/2014, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:53:12 -0500
> M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
>
>> OpenBSD has poor multiprocessing performance but Bitrig is working on it.
>
> You can buy yourself performance by buying faster Hardware, but you
> can't buy yourself se
Void Linux [1] and (OpenBSD [2] or Bitrig [3]). Both easy to install,
configure, and use.
OpenBSD has poor multiprocessing performance but Bitrig is working on it.
Void seems, in many ways, a better Arch.
I mean to try morpheus too at some time when not so busy.
I tried Plan 9 but the interface
On 18/11/2014, Louis Santillan wrote:
> Returning error code doesn't work well for many asynchronous calls (aio_*)
> [0].
Why? aio_error indeed returns an error code, and separate aio_return
and aio_error would not even be needed if read, write, etc returned as
I proposed, as one call could so r
On 18/11/2014, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On a side note here, for a failing syscall or similar, I think the
> idea is to check for < 0 rather than == -1. I am not opposed to the
> latter except that is already used less frequently in sbase.
On an edge note, it would be much saner for many sys
On 28/10/2014, Daniel Camolês wrote:
> Capability mode would require the target operating system to have this
> kind of feature.
Yes.
Capsicum [1] works on FreeBSD and Linux and is being ported to OpenBSD.
Plan 9 already has its own security model [2].
> Given a world that have more than one o
On 28/10/2014, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:58:05 -0500
> M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
>
>> The government is using tax to quash dissent or other behaviors it
>> dislikes. This is not a broad goods+services tax, this is a tax with a
>> target.
>
> What is the
On 28/10/2014, Daniel Camolês wrote:
> 2014-10-28 12:01 GMT-02:00 M Farkas-Dyck :
>> Distribute (source or intermediate) code over 9p. Generic client is 9p
>> client and (compiler or interpreter) of (source or intermediate)
>> language.
>>
>
> That's inter
On 28/10/2014, FRIGN wrote:
> How is this threatening freedom(tm)?
The government is using tax to quash dissent or other behaviors it
dislikes. This is not a broad goods+services tax, this is a tax with a
target.
> It's just an adaptation to modern times.
So is PRISM; they already had ECHELON.
On 25/10/2014, Daniel Camolês wrote:
> But when it comes to application
> distribution. By application distribution I mean, when we want to
> develop and maintain software in a central location and enable several
> users with a generic client to use it.
Distribute (source or intermediate) code ov
I'm not sure, but some in this community are hacking morpheus [1],
which is much alike.
[1] http://morpheus.2f30.org/
On 22/09/2014, Evan Gates wrote:
> One thing I'm not clear on, in your opinion does suckless software use
> fixed or dynamic sized buffers/stacks? i.e. should it support
> arbitrarily long lines? depth of nested blocks? number of write files?
> I've seen some of both in software that seems suckles
On 16/09/2014, Raphaël Proust wrote:
> I am planning on making a filter for the sam language. I.e. something
> like sed but that would accept sam expressions.
http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man1/ssam.html
On 15/09/2014, Maxime Coste wrote:
> And for C++, well, I know there is some vocal individuals against it on the
> sl mailing list, but I think most members are sensible, we do not need to
> stay frozen with C89, C++ is bigger than C, more complex, but provides a lot
> of abstraction features that
On 13/09/2014, Marc André Tanner wrote:
> The default interface is a vim clone called vis.
Name clash on BSD [1][2][3]
[1]
https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=vis&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+10.0-RELEASE&arch=default&format=html
[2] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=vis
On 30/06/2014, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> Better than link-numbering using numbers is the link-enumeration using
> characters on the homerow on the keyboard:
>
> Page 1[aa] 2[ab] 3[js]...
One would have to configure which characters are on the home row; 'b'
is not on mine.
On 29/06/2014, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:43:36PM +0300, Aapo Vienamo wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 03:00:32PM +0300, Dimitris Zervas wrote:
>> > I think that a new text editor must be created, with text interface (and
>> > maybe GUI later).
>
>> No, the current s
On 25/06/2014, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it
> reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs
> included!).
>
> In the reality, each case is different, and people won't draw
> their line in the same place. The important thing i
On 23/06/2014, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> Arch is pretty good, has great documentation and is quite lightweight.
> I must complain about the use of systemd, which is, in my opinion, not
> very suckless at all. No other complaints though.
Beware: Arch now deletes all static libraries in packages
On 18/04/2014, FRIGN wrote:
> I also don't like the idea of lambda-functions, but this depends on
> personal taste.
Yes, I prefer combinators, but they alone are in many cases cumbersome.
On 18/04/2014, FRIGN wrote:
> I checked out some of them and
> the according POSIX-specification[0] and wondered how much work it
> would be to reimplement it and, of course, if there is any reason to do
> so.
Too much work, no good reason. We already have mksh.
> The main issue we are facing to
On 15/04/2014, Jakub Lach wrote:
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libssl/src/ssl/
Win. OpenBSD tolerates little bullshit.
On this note, de Raadt's [uncommonly restrained ☺] comment on OpenSSL:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/211963
40 matches
Mail list logo
