On Saturday, 30 June 2018 at 02:23:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 02:08:08 Joakim via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
The response is that those of us who have gone to dconf have
found it to be valuable. It's not just that we're doing what
others have done or that we think that it might be a good idea.
It's actually been valuable in practice.
Honestly, this is this first time that I've ever seen anyone
try to argue that conferences like this are a bad idea. My
experience has been that it has been a very good idea, and
there are plenty of people out there who attend conferences
regularly and try to get others to go because of how much value
they see in it (and not just for dconf). If anything, the
number of conferences that I've been hearing about has gone up,
not down, and plenty of new conferences have started up in
recent years (e.g. BSD Taiwan started up last year, the OpenZFS
guys have started up a at least a couple of related conferences
in the last few years, and RustConf is quite new). If you think
that it's a bad sign that we have dconf, then that's certainly
your choice, but the arguments that you've presented are
unlikely to be persuasive to those of us who have actually
attended dconf.
That's nice, but since you present no arguments other than simply
stating that it's "valuable" or "a very good idea" that's "gone
up"- why? who knows? That would require actually supplying an
argument- the 99.9% of D users who've never attended Dconf are
unlikely to be persuaded that it's ever worth attending DConf or
wasting any more time with a language that is more focused on
blowing time and money on that outdated conference format than
getting work done on the language.
