Wayland is just a set of protocol definitions.
You want to compare Arcan to a Wayland implementation. Like gnome-shell. Or weston.
Or Arcan. Adding Wayland support to Arcan has been a thing.
You want to compare Arcan to a Wayland implementation. Like gnome-shell. Or weston.
Or Arcan. Adding Wayland support to Arcan has been a thing.
I understand Arcan is larger in scope than Wayland, but Arcan must have a protocol and architecture behind said protocol that can be meaningfully compared to Wayland's.
Part of the problem is that Xorg is much more well defined in that most can grok "what it is" so there is a point of reference to base an explanation from without 'too much' confusion, there's stuff to work on that isn't IRC logs or mailing list posts which is seriously 90% of Wayland right there.
Wayland is not a "protocol" in the traditional RFC/Jon Postel sense. Heck, even the spec PDF itself referred to itself as a Display Server. There's single X extensions with far more coherent descriptions than all of the Wayland Ecosystem. It's full of overloaded terms and technical WTFs!?. If anything, its the worst parts of Micosoft COM resurrected. An asynchronous Object Oriented IDL. Run for the hills.
Some say it'll fix security issues, it'll fix performance issues, it'll fix world peace -- with barely anyone answering or questioning "how", "why" or "why can't X?". When you counter-argue its feature anaemia it is "oh it's just a protocol, the compositor fixes that" and when you question the feature bulimia it is "oh that's compositor extensions, not the protocol".
Neither position is substantiated by its technical underpinnings, the protocol parts itself, nor the documentation, nor any of the the 'project goals'.