Forum: Linux and Free Software
started by: mikshaw
Posted by mikshaw on Oct. 17 2006,16:31"Dedicated to software which sucks less"
< http://www.suckless.org/ >
This is a new site, so the software available is mostly created by one person, but I like its philosophy....similar to that of DSL in that smaller is often (usually?) better. Modern applications are getting much too fat, slow, and messy. Complexity is the enemy of good programming.
I have been using the dwm window manager since v0.2, and lately have been using it almost exclusively. There is not and probably will not be a myDSL extension for it, at least not by my hands, due to the fact that all configuration is source-based, but it builds without trouble in DSL with gcc1.dsl & XFree86-dev.dsl. It will probably do the same with gcc1-with-libs, but I don't have one of those packages at this time. Just wanted to mention that dwm is perfect for some of the geekier DSL users =o)
Dmenu is a great tool for any X activies in which the user needs to be presented with a list of choices. Scripting for dwm is much simpler than for a whiptail or fltk list.
Posted by John on Oct. 27 2006,16:00There are some interesting programs over there. I think the name is very fitting.
Posted by WDef on Oct. 29 2006,14:40Someone please save me from KDE (one reason I use dsl so much = Fluxbox). I hear the new KDE is/was supposed to be less bloated and slow. The new Fedora CEO says he wants to make that huge, sluggish, waddling, tottering, reckless development platform slimmer and faster too. Haven't looked at new releases of either. I'll believe it when I see it. I think one part of their problem is with things that use a lot of Python eg Fedora and Open Office (also slow). Apparently Open Office contains its own custom python interpreter. Python may be fashionable, look nice and have a lot of white space, but it runs as slow as a wet week.
Interesting site BTW ...
Must look into dwm sometime.
Posted by crusadingknight on Oct. 29 2006,16:48
OpenOffice.org uses UNO, so it can interface with python (but uses relatively few python extensions.). However, the biggest bottleneck in OOo is the requirement of Java to run. In any case, python certainly executes faster than bash, or any other *nix shell.
What would be really interesting would be if there was some list of minimalist applications available somewhere (as, oftentimes I'm forced to develop/hack on my own.)
Posted by WDef on Oct. 30 2006,15:55*inadvertent double post - deleted*
Posted by WDef on Oct. 30 2006,16:09
Ah, Java - interesting. Python was just my theory.
But do you have any hard data about python's execution speed as compared with, say, bash or Perl? I guess it depends on exactly what it being done and how optimised the code is.
Anyway, more to the point - it's an obvious pity that such a seminal and important suite of programs (OOo) is slow (to load and to run). Hopefully it's improving. More power to OOo
Posted by roberts on Oct. 30 2006,16:17
For comparing speed and memory used by various langaues
this site is always fun to visit < Computer Language Shootout >
Choose your processor type, then compare your favorite language.
Posted by WDef on Oct. 30 2006,16:36Weird synchronicity! - I've just been looking at that very site.
Lua (on p4) comes off well compared to python (not surprising), and perl kills it in some areas (again, not surprising I guess). Say what you want but there's very little that ugly old perl can't do and do fast, if you can put up with the fugliness - which I why I've been trying to learn a bit of Perl lately.
But "it all comes down to what's right for the job" - trying to save a few cpu cycles in an era of 3Ghz+ processors is nuts, and python people swear it's so easy to code in, with less lines of code. And then there's fast external modules written in C++.
Civilization 4 is written in python so I've heard ...
I'm always open to being eventually converted to Python I suppose ...
Posted by crusadingknight on Oct. 30 2006,17:17
Ruby, lua, squirrel, even perl allow native modules too. In general, I'd say really the size of the runtime itself is more important for a scripting language now than how fast it can perform.
By the way, if you read the sandbox benchmarks, you can see LuaJIT clobbers Perl and Python Psycho easily, and even competes decently well with gcj and Mono AOT. (Unfortunately, YARV isn't doing too well yet, which is a bit of a letdown to an occasional Ruby programmer like myself.)
Posted by mikshaw on Oct. 30 2006,18:13
I have the same opinion (note that's "opinion" and not "fact"). Python is seriously fat by nearly any comparison, and that makes it much less appealing to me. Lua and Tcl, while both may not be as powerful as Python, are much easier to incorporate into a system when you consider small harddrives and dialup networking as factors. On top of this, Python is a mess of files. I've gone through the install directory a few times, and it made my head hurt =o)
Posted by humpty on Oct. 31 2006,17:15
"..This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No novices asking stupid questions."
ha ha, i love it, this guy will also have the most cleanest & minimalist forum, should he want one!
Posted by Winter Knight on Nov. 10 2006,22:45That's what they used to say about linux. Then it got better. And easier. Then the noobs came.