Dan Espen <dane_at_mk.bellcore.com> writes:
> I don't see how you have answered #4 above. Wouldn't having an
> interpreter hooked up to fvwm2 consume lots of memory instantly
> transforming fvwm2 into CDE?
Probably about a meg. Certainly significant. There will be some memory
benefits to getting rid of the internal interpreter as well.
>
> Wouldn't any new "fvwm plus interpreter" project be redundant to the
> scwm project? (It doesn't seem to me that it makes much of a
> difference whether the interpreter is Scheme, Perl, Tcl, Java.)
>
> I haven't come to any final opinion, I'd like to see how scwm works
> out, but so far I'm not having many problems I can't solve with fvwm2.
I didn't know about the scwm project until recently. I agree that it seems
quite redundant, so much so that I suggested in my last post that perhaps it
would be best for everyone if scwm became fvwm version 3.
I personally have lots of problems with FvwmIconMan, and other modules which I
would like to write, that would be solved by having an interpreter in fvwm.
--
Brady Montz
bradym_at_cs.arizona.edu
--
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 majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.
Received on Tue May 05 1998 - 18:17:16 BST