• Quack Doc@lemmy.world
          0·
          4 months ago

          this doesn’t apply here. hyprland has announced that “all your wlroots programs will still work”. so they are keeping support for wlr protcols

      • porl@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        Do you have examples of this? Not being contrarian, I actually run Hyprland myself. I’m just curious where the limitations of wlroots have been.

        • Quack Doc@lemmy.world
          0·
          4 months ago

          the blog post inside the linked blog post goes over some points. each point is copy and pasted more or less.

          • like for example the multiple times I’ve spent dozens of hours debugging a single issue only for it to turn out a small typo or a careless mistake that any language would catch at compile time, except for C
          • Memory safety issues arising from the absolute lack of any documentation whatsoever of wlroots have also been quite the annoyance
          • The development of a display server is very complicated, as they are very broad and complex pieces of software. Mixing a C library with 0 documentation is basically asking for trouble.
          • new wayland features that require changes in wlroots tend to take ages to get merged into wlroots, like for example tearing, where a basically ready MR took 9 months to merge
          • explicit sync still not being a thing, despite KDE and Gnome having implementations already (I believe it is now, but not at the time of the blog post)
    • Baleine@jlai.lu
      0·
      4 months ago

      I think its a good idea not having wlroots everywhere, its important so that people dont just assume every wlroot extension is available

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        People advocating for Xorg make exactly the opposite argument and wlroots got a home at FDO for a reason. Also, this is not a move away from wlroots on technological grounds, it’s because the Hyprland developer got banned because of his behavior.