The challenge is nice. However the major reason I love applications that follow the suckless philosophy is the tendency to avoid large or non-ubiquitous libraries. The setup at work is one involving a wide variety of platforms and configurations, so having a complete setup that works nigh-everywhere is very very appealing.
I like knowing what's going on but like a very efficient screen usage, and allowing certain things piped to other things allows a variety of customizable interfaces and setups. I prize that over shiny GUIs and amazing configuration any day. I'd rather be able to grep a set of text files, than adjust history writing settings, memory on scroll back, or learn client specific commands on regexing the wanted message. I've ended up opening up the socket and readline libraries in ruby and cobbling together a minimal IRC overlay. The most I'll be doing is color coding output, trimming useless data, and setting up a few macros for authentication. sic is almost perfect but for a few of it's choices in output, and I got fed up with figuring out a decent way of chaining pipes. When I can short circut a setup of 3 or 4 process with just building a script that opens a few sockets, I'll call that a gain. Additionally I can apply the knowledge and already developed code to when I take a whack a minimal cli jabber client. 2009/3/6 Neale Pickett <ne...@woozle.org>: > Ian Daniher <it.dani...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Why do you want to use sic over irssi? > > Maybe the guy likes a challenge :) > >> irssi is pretty light... > > The irssi processes on my multi-user server are currently the second > biggest memory users. Behind them are the web server, the SMTP, IMAP, > and POP3 servers, bitlbee, and even the IRC server! > > It certainly isn't anywhere near as heavyweight as, say, pidgin, but I'd > stop short of calling irssi "pretty light". I'm pretty sure it weighs > in heavier than any other text-mode client. > > Neale > > > -- stadik.net