You likely could mean... a rewrite might the easiest and much faster. I think that only dwm on suckless is too little. It needs a new sort of wm, visually like jwm, filliing the gap between tinywm and dwm.
Cheers! 2016-08-02 23:04 GMT+02:00 Timothy Rice <t.r...@ms.unimelb.edu.au>: > Hi Pat, > >> Sure that it needs a bit of improvements... > > 1. I am not sure what problem JWM is trying to solve. > 2. I do not think "improvements" will make it suck less. > > Certainly there is a place in the world for JWM, just as there is a place > in the world for Openbox, Awesome, even Gnome and KDE. I used Gnome back in > the day before trying out XFCE, then Openbox, then Awesome, then XMonad, > before settling on dwm. Everyone has to start at their own starting point. > > But just because there is a place for something in the world doesn't mean > it is built to suck less. > > Do you think the JWM devs would be keen to strip out all the XML cruft and > go the dwm route, putting configs in a C header? I believe that is the kind > of improvement you would need to see before a suckless nomination would > make sense. > > > ~ Tim >
