[Xmonad] [HUMOR] xmonad useless without programming skills ?

[Don Stewart]

alextarkovsky:
> Michael F. Lamb wrote:
> > de facto "piles of crap" layout.
> 
> Thanks, I don't think I've heard the classic WIMP paradigm described so
> eloquently. ;)
> 
> > Might it not be possible for there to exist something in XMonadContrib
> > that contains all the bloat necessary to provide a gtk (or qt) gui
> > configuration tool?
> 
> I also think contrib is where it belongs.
> 
> >  - Distributors could enable it in Config.hs and compile it for the
> > "non-programmers," while the rest of us are happy with our lean,
> > efficient core XMonad.
> 
> Distros such as Ubuntu would most likely bundle it by default, but more
> flexible and technically-oriented distros like Gentoo would keep it
> optional (just as Gentoo does with xmonad extensions).
> 
> >  - Various configuration fronts could be contributed and selectively
> > enabled/ignored (GTK storing data in the gconf registry thing, QT
> > however the KDE people store application data, vimscript, .muttrc, etc.)
> 
> Agreeing with Don that this is a perfect project for Gtk2Hs, I must also
> caution against storing anything in GConf. From a usability standpoint
> GConf is an abomination, and I believe it only exists to placate critics
> of Gnome's many boneheaded nips and tucks to various interfaces. From a
> backing store standpoint, Gnome proper and Gnome-targeted applications
> (not general GTK+ applications) remain the only consumers of GConf
> services to date, so why not just use a single configuration data format
> that all platforms can use without the GConf dependencies?
> 
> It wouldn't be wise to have the GUI molest Config.hs either though,
> which brings me to another issue: Will xmonad be configurable at runtime
> in the future? I realize it's still in early development, but down the
> road it'll be awkward if users have a nice GUI configuration utility yet
> have to recompile xmonad after clicking on a checkbox or spinner button.
> Runtime code modification is the only thing I admire about Smalltalk,
> and it's something I hope is practical in Haskell.

Spencer has a possible architecture based on ghci, which would give us
zero-compile reloading, using just the bytecode interpreter.

-- Don