Subject: Re: FVWM: Like RATS from a sinking SHIP...

From: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 15:20:55 +0100 (BST)

> From: Stig <[email-masked]>
> 
> Yeah, but I'm not much into retrocomputing.  I have a dx2/66 notebook with
> three times the memory and I can't stand to use X with or without fvwm.

So what are you doing in this mailing list?

> So, I've taken a look at the code for Enlightenment.
> The lack of a modules interface is good because I think that modules in
> their current incarnation are a pain.

We are going to have to differ here. I think modules are a great way of keeping
FVWM stable while developing functionality in globally diverse locations.

Cheers,
Tim.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Stig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 08:12:12 -0700

> So what are you doing in this mailing list?

Planning to stick around as a "spy"...

> FVWM stable while developing functionality in globally diverse locations.

I don't see why a native interface to a well-supported scripting language is
any less stable than the current pipeline and datastream interface.

    Many modules are written in scripting languages now

    The standard modules (like fvwmauto) don't change and so aren't a source
    of instability.

    With a scripting language, you can still talk to external modules via
    mechanisms such as the Tk 'send' command.

Stig