What is the appeal of a binary-tree only in a tiling window manager (bspwm) vs. nested splits (i3 and sway)?
What is the appeal of a binary-tree only in a tiling window manager (bspwm) vs. nested splits (i3 and sway)?
Bspwm has many appeals, and I do not want to focus on those. I want to focus on binary-tree separation of windows and its benefits vs alternatives. What's the appeal?
For comparison, Sway and i3 allow for the v-split and h-split layout, so you can have 2 or more windows split side by side. You can nest them, so it is sort of an n-ary tree. It feels a lot more powerful.
So why the binary tree? The others seem richer and more capable. Bspwm is marketed as more powerful than i3 but it seems the other way around?
You're spot on. Bspwm is just worse.
Dynamic tilers are always worse off in the actual window management department than manual tilers.
It's why it's best to use i3-likes and then add a script for autotiling, so you can always break it when you need (or make n-ary trees as you put it).
A window manager should be useful; dynamic tilers are not
Well I guess they just don't think it is necessary to have a n-ary tree. I use i3 but I rarely have more than 2 windows open per monitor (apart from my floating scratchpad terminal). Usually I have just two windows side by side per workspace. So if I would switch to bspwm I wouldn't really be limited by it. That is also my reason for not switching to a dynamic tiler: I never split my windows enough to where it matters.