I'll go through the ones you mention and a couple more: Reason being that the program doesnt need to read off a dotfile each time you start it, and change it. Typically when you have to recompile the program to change things as opposed to having a dotfile, It will run faster. Another is that some programs are edited with a config file in your home directory, others have to be recompiled using a config.h file. One is the smaller the program, for example dwm is a lot smaller than i3: It will run faster. Hey! As someone who has switched wm's like it was going out of style I thought that I would try and give you a good awser.įor the most part they are very similar and their differnces can be boiled down to three things:įirst off all to awnser your question about preformance: There are certain attributes that can make wm's run faster. u/Slabity corrected a couple of my points: SLOC not equating to speed becuse of diffences in xlib and xcb libraries. When I say resource heavy It is in comparison to other, lighter wm's which do not have the same functionality as i3 by a longshot. i3 is very light compared to other programs, and extremely light compared to desktop enviorments. I mention the resource heavy nature of i3 which is only half true. Lots of great responses and a couple things I want to preface this with. Qtox freeze start windows code#(I also like the idea that the Haskell code is type-checked at compile time, so that in principle there should never be any runtime errors, hence no freezing.) I like playing with Haskell, so that's why I use xmonad. My advice is to choose the WM whose configuration language you're most comfortable in. (Probably vice versa, too.) Note also that some tiling WMs come with a status bar (awesome, I think), while others do not (xmonad). However, when I moved from awesome to xmonad, I did notice that there were a few xmonad extensions which (as far as I know) had no readily available analogous extension in awesome (at least at the time). Most tiling WMs have the same basic functionalities, and most also have the same extensions. awesome is written in C but configured in Lua). xmonad is both written and configured in Haskell), while other times they are different (e.g. Sometimes, those two languages are the same (e.g. The main difference is the language that the WM is built on and the language used to configure the WM. I doubt there's much noticeable difference in performance between tiling WMs (at least the most popular ones).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |