> Why not? It's open-source software. Depending on your architecture you may be able to reuse parts of it.
"The system is not modular, but you can make it so."
What a ridiculous statement.
> But as a more flexible choice, there is wlroots.
Great! How do I use wlroots as a user?
> Toolkits implement these stuff, so most of the time "support by client application" is a gtk/qt version bump away.
Ah, right. Is this why Xwayland exists, because it's so easy to do? So we can tell users that all their applications will continue to work when they switch to Wayland?
> Is it really fare to compare the first 10 years of a couple of hobby developers with the current "wide-spread" state of the platform?
It's not fare, you're right. I'll wait another decade before I voice my concerns again.
Why would you want to use it as a user? That makes zero sense.
> Is this why Xwayland exists, because it's so easy to do
I don't get your point. The reason it exists is backwards compatibility. There are binaries as well where changing a library is not so easy, and not every version change is equal within a toolkit.
But it's much different to go from X to Wayland then from Wayland to Wayland with one more protocol.
"The system is not modular, but you can make it so."
What a ridiculous statement.
> But as a more flexible choice, there is wlroots.
Great! How do I use wlroots as a user?
> Toolkits implement these stuff, so most of the time "support by client application" is a gtk/qt version bump away.
Ah, right. Is this why Xwayland exists, because it's so easy to do? So we can tell users that all their applications will continue to work when they switch to Wayland?
> Is it really fare to compare the first 10 years of a couple of hobby developers with the current "wide-spread" state of the platform?
It's not fare, you're right. I'll wait another decade before I voice my concerns again.