Re: DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition
On 25/12/2018 6:01 PM, Joakim wrote: See my responses to Nicholas above, I don't think the Android port merits a talk. By the same standards I apply to others' talks above, I don't think my work merits a talk either. ;) A talk covering ARM and Android development in general would be very well received in the context of D. If you want to be convinced we could do a poll on who would want to see it (but I expect quite a large number of people would be in support of).
Re: DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition
On Monday, 24 December 2018 at 22:22:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 12/24/18 2:44 AM, Joakim wrote: On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 22:36:05 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Huh? It's their decision, not yours. Even if the decision has no reason at all, it's still theirs. What is the problem? Start your own D "conference competitor" if you think you can do better. They are accountable to the community, so the decision and its reasons matter. My impression is that the community likes and benefits from these conferences, so everything's cool there. The 0.1% of the community that attend seem to like it, the vast majority don't, or at least don't care. I, for one, will not be donating to the foundation as long as they continue to waste money this way, just as others have said they won't donate as long as it doesn't put out a Vision document anymore or otherwise communicate what it's doing with their money. Nobody is asking for your money for this conference (unless you want to attend), and if you feel this way, that's totally your choice. I'm not talking about the registration fee, I'm talking about contributing anything to the foundation, which Walter indicates above covers some of the expenses for DConf. I like the results that come from the conferences, I've been to all of them since 2013, on my dime for 3, and with assistance for 3. I felt it was 100% worth it for all. Yet you cannot give a single reason _why_ you felt it was worth it, or why my suggestions wouldn't make it better. Nobody cares to debate something that has already been scheduled and planned, the time to bring up concerns was earlier, when you brought it up before. But that failed to convince, now it's decided, time to move on. So you agree with me that there's no point in "debating" it again, perhaps you should have addressed this comment to Mike then? Mike didn't start the debate in this thread, you did. I did no such thing: I asked for the reasons _why_ the decision was made, considering the previous debate. That is not restarting the debate, simply asking for the rationale. Others then tried to debate me again, and while I did respect them enough to engage with their arguments, I repeatedly pointed out that I wasn't looking to debate it again. Consider how one feels when careful deliberation is made, and a final decision, combined with an announcement is made. Would you like to have people question your decisions AFTER they are made, and commitments have already been established? The time to question them is before they are made, not after. Questioning after is simply viewed (rightly) as sour grapes. You didn't get your way, move on. If you're making a bad decision, it _should_ be questioned. Almost nothing that has been decided so far would stop most of my three suggestions from still being implemented. As for how they feel about it, I don't care. The reason most projects and companies fail is because the decision-making process stops being about putting out a good product but about "feelings" and various people "saving face," especially when higher up the hierarchy, ie politics. And don't make up some nonsense that I'm saying that it's okay if everybody starts cursing each other out like Linus did: we're talking about _questioning a decision_. That is the whole point of having a community. The day this community starts being more about saving face is the day I leave it, as that's the beginning of the end, and I don't want to be around for that end. If it's such a great idea, that should be an easy case to make, compared to the alternatives given. Yet all I get is a bunch of stone-walling, suggesting no reasoning was actually involved, just blindly aping others and the past. It is easy, for those who have attended conferences and like them -- they work well. All past dconfs are shining examples. Just drop it and move on to something else. You lost the battle for this one, it's no longer up for discussion. Heh, there was no "battle," as most of those responding didn't even understand what I wrote, like Iain above, gave no arguments (we "like them -- they work well"), and as finally clear from Mike and Walter's responses here, there was no real deliberation on the matter. You think they just flipped a coin one day, and didn't think about any past experience at all? No real thinking must have gone into it because only intelligent people can come to the conclusion you reached, right? This kind of "debate" where the assumption is that only my way is correct is common out there these days, it's tiring. Not at all, the whole reason I'm willing to debate is that other worthwhile perspectives may be out there. I think the evidence and arguments strongly favor the suggestions I'm putting forward, but I'm perfectly willing to consider other arguments. That is the same stance they should have, but don't appear to. My problem
Re: DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition
On Monday, 24 December 2018 at 12:30:57 UTC, Vijay Nayar wrote: Looking forward to it! The caliber of people at these conferences has been exceptional every year I've gone, and many of the ideas presented have been very valuable, whether they were directly related to DLang or not. Just one small example was a 2017 talk by Bastiaan Veelo on D libraries implementing Parsing Expression Grammars, which I had never heard of at the time. But the idea ended up being very useful for greatly simplifying the interfaces of systems I was working on that year. Thank you Vijay, that’s nice to hear! Bastiaan.
Re: DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition
On 12/24/2018 4:30 AM, Vijay Nayar wrote: I've been doing quite a bit of work this year on the Google S2 Geometric Library in D. If I can benchmark the library against the C++ version or show how it can be used to tackle some of the trickier real-time problems in large-scale web services, would it be a good candidate to try to make into a talk for the conference? Sounds like a good idea!
Re: DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition
On 12/24/2018 2:22 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I'm sure Walter and Andrei would not discourage more D conferences or conference-like gatherings. Speaking for myself (and I'm sure Andrei would agree) we're all for it.
Re: Beta 2.084.0
On 12/17/18 10:38 PM, Martin Nowak wrote: Second beta live now.
Re: DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition
On 12/24/18 2:44 AM, Joakim wrote: On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 22:36:05 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Huh? It's their decision, not yours. Even if the decision has no reason at all, it's still theirs. What is the problem? Start your own D "conference competitor" if you think you can do better. They are accountable to the community, so the decision and its reasons matter. My impression is that the community likes and benefits from these conferences, so everything's cool there. I, for one, will not be donating to the foundation as long as they continue to waste money this way, just as others have said they won't donate as long as it doesn't put out a Vision document anymore or otherwise communicate what it's doing with their money. Nobody is asking for your money for this conference (unless you want to attend), and if you feel this way, that's totally your choice. I like the results that come from the conferences, I've been to all of them since 2013, on my dime for 3, and with assistance for 3. I felt it was 100% worth it for all. Nobody cares to debate something that has already been scheduled and planned, the time to bring up concerns was earlier, when you brought it up before. But that failed to convince, now it's decided, time to move on. So you agree with me that there's no point in "debating" it again, perhaps you should have addressed this comment to Mike then? Mike didn't start the debate in this thread, you did. Consider how one feels when careful deliberation is made, and a final decision, combined with an announcement is made. Would you like to have people question your decisions AFTER they are made, and commitments have already been established? The time to question them is before they are made, not after. Questioning after is simply viewed (rightly) as sour grapes. You didn't get your way, move on. If it's such a great idea, that should be an easy case to make, compared to the alternatives given. Yet all I get is a bunch of stone-walling, suggesting no reasoning was actually involved, just blindly aping others and the past. It is easy, for those who have attended conferences and like them -- they work well. All past dconfs are shining examples. Just drop it and move on to something else. You lost the battle for this one, it's no longer up for discussion. Heh, there was no "battle," as most of those responding didn't even understand what I wrote, like Iain above, gave no arguments (we "like them -- they work well"), and as finally clear from Mike and Walter's responses here, there was no real deliberation on the matter. You think they just flipped a coin one day, and didn't think about any past experience at all? No real thinking must have gone into it because only intelligent people can come to the conclusion you reached, right? This kind of "debate" where the assumption is that only my way is correct is common out there these days, it's tiring. The best thing you can do is start a competing conference style and show how it works better. I'm sure Walter and Andrei would not discourage more D conferences or conference-like gatherings. Since they don't take DConf seriously, I see no reason to either: I'll just start ignoring it from now on. That's unfortunate, but not anything I can change. You have contributed a lot in terms of the android port, although I haven't really programmed in android (I have a tiny bit, with Xamarin (hated it) and a bit with Java (was OK, but crazy complicated) ). I hope at some point you reconsider, I'd love to see a presentation on it. -Steve
Re: DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition
I'm just some random guy but for what it's worth the recorded talks at DConf are valuable to me. I don't much care what format the conference takes or if we even continue to have them since it's not often practical for me to attend anyway, but I would miss the talks. It would be cool if the community would put out a standalone lecture or two throughout the year between DConfs. Please apply lessons learned this time to make sure all the lectures eventually make it to YouTube in decent quality. Thanks for the work ya'll do.
Re: DCD xmas edition
On Monday, 24 December 2018 at 13:24:30 UTC, Basile B. wrote: added support for completion on template type parameters that must implicitly convert to a type. You, sir, are my hero!
DCD xmas edition
By some chances some cool new feature were added latest week, justifying a new minor release [1] [1] https://github.com/dlang-community/DCD/releases/tag/v0.10.0
Re: DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! We're still ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on this for weeks and, now that we have a venue, I just can't keep quiet about it any longer. Looking forward to it! The caliber of people at these conferences has been exceptional every year I've gone, and many of the ideas presented have been very valuable, whether they were directly related to DLang or not. Just one small example was a 2017 talk by Bastiaan Veelo on D libraries implementing Parsing Expression Grammars, which I had never heard of at the time. But the idea ended up being very useful for greatly simplifying the interfaces of systems I was working on that year. I've been doing quite a bit of work this year on the Google S2 Geometric Library in D. If I can benchmark the library against the C++ version or show how it can be used to tackle some of the trickier real-time problems in large-scale web services, would it be a good candidate to try to make into a talk for the conference?
