Well, it is clear that, for me, the dyre approach is clearly the simplest to implement, since everything is in Haskell. Maybe I could start with it, and see if it suits me... (Sorry, I know, ^^ I keep changing my mind...)
2010/5/5 Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Limestraël <limestr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, the xmonad approach is very neat, but I see 2 major (IMO) drawbacks > to > > it: > > 1) The end-user has to have GHC, and all the necessary libraries to > compile > > the configuration > > 2) A scripting language should be simple and QUICK to learn : Haskell is > > clean, powerful but its learning takes time > > For basic customization, many XMonad users (judging by questions on > #xmonad) have little to no Haskell experience and get by. Further, > it's easier to step down the power than to increase it; because we use > Haskell, it's possible to have simpler configuration options like > xmonad-light* > > * http://braincrater.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/announcing-xmonad-light/ > isn't a very good explanation of xmonad-light, but I don't know of any > others > > -- > gwern >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
