This is classic second-system thinking. 'This time we'll do everything right!
This time we'll write it without any bugs!'
Yeah, there's a lot to dislike about how X works. It's old, and it shows. But it has had man-centuries of work to get it where it is now; a de novo solution will necessarily need similar levels of work to get to a similar point.
What could radically improve a next-generation X replacement would be to use a higher-level language than C, which would remove entire categories of errors as possibilities. I'm thinking either OCaml or Common Lisp could potentially be excellent choices, for very different reasons.
But replacing one large, old, battle-tested C project with a large, new, untested C project isn't going to usher in a happy world of simplicity and security.
Yeah, there's a lot to dislike about how X works. It's old, and it shows. But it has had man-centuries of work to get it where it is now; a de novo solution will necessarily need similar levels of work to get to a similar point.
What could radically improve a next-generation X replacement would be to use a higher-level language than C, which would remove entire categories of errors as possibilities. I'm thinking either OCaml or Common Lisp could potentially be excellent choices, for very different reasons.
But replacing one large, old, battle-tested C project with a large, new, untested C project isn't going to usher in a happy world of simplicity and security.