Re: [Sawfish] Re: Porting Sawfish to Racket

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

Hash: SHA1

On 11/11/2012 04:33, Laurent wrote:
> Dear Sawfish and Racket users,
> After roughly estimating the effort required to port Sawfish to Racket (
> ), I found that it
> would be too much work and would probably not be the best option. The
> effort required before having anything usable would just be too big. So I
> started a new project from scratch ( ),
> which is currently in a minimal but usable state (for testing purposes).
> Even though it's not Sawfish, it's aimed at being very similar to it
> (extensibility, scripting in Scheme, console, etc.), but of course its
> current state is nowhere near Sawfish.
> However, I believe its development should be greatly simplified thanks to
> Racket and DrRacket and its wonderful debugging messages and facilities
> than using C and Rep. It avoids C altogether thanks to Jon Rafkind's X11
> bindings using the foreign function interface (
> , which also provides xlambda, a
> simple rewriting of xmonad, due to Kevin Tew).
> I'm going to run low on spare time, so anyone willing to help (even with
> very small increments) is welcome. And of course I can help anyone wanting
> to get started but doesn't know where to begin. Critics and ideas are also
> welcome (now is a good time for them, later may be too late to change
> things).
> Cheers,
> Laurent
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Laurent <laurent.orseau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> (cross-post sawfish, racket)
>> Hi all,
>> Only very recently have I discovered the excellent, simple and lispy
>> window manager Sawfish ( ), after being
>> frustrated with Compiz and Metacity and wanting to do what I really want to
>> do with my windows (tried xmonad, wished it would force me to learn
>> Haskell, but couldn't stand the syntax. Plus it seemed too constrained to
>> me).
>> However, Sawfish uses an outdated and specific Scheme-like language named
>> Rep, and the maintainers are currently looking for a replacement with less
>> flaws and which would be better and actively maintained.
>> Racket ( ) has been suggested on several
>> occasions, among other languages (e.g., Chicken, or even Python).
>> I personally love Racket and would be very happy to have it in Sawfish
>> (actually I want a Racket-machine), especially when it comes to debugging
>> (couldn't yet figure out a good way to do that cleanly).
>> Although there is little chance (unfortunately) that I can/will invest a
>> lot of energy and time in trying to port Sawfish to Racket, I figured that
>> if I could help the process a little, things may move slightly faster. So I
>> started a page on Sawfish's wiki to try to evaluate what needs to be done
>> and what are the biggest problems to solve:
>> It's currently in a stub state, but I will add information with time as I
>> use and understand Rep (and Racket better). But there are people out there
>> who know one or both of them better than me, so please contribute to the
>> page as you see fit.
>> My $0.02, waiting for the ultimate window manager,
>> Laurent

Hello Laurent,

Why do you think starting from scratch cost less than porting Sawfish to
Racket? Why do you think that a project Racket dependent is better than
being based on Rep? From a language point of view Guile seems to be the
only Scheme interpreter currently bound to GTK+. I don't think it's
really relevant to switch from a Scheme-like interpreter to something
else without gain in portability.


POMPEE William
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


Attachment: 0x6CE99265.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: 0x6CE99265.asc.sig
Description: PGP signature

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+