On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 02:31:36 UTC, Murilo wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 15:06:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
No, the OP clearly stated that he made the group "official".
That is a deliberate attempt to fracture.
I'm sorry you see it like this but my intention when I
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 02:31:36 UTC, Murilo wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 15:06:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
No, the OP clearly stated that he made the group "official".
That is a deliberate attempt to fracture.
I'm sorry you see it like this but my intention when I
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 02:31:36AM +, Murilo via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 15:06:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> > No, the OP clearly stated that he made the group "official". That is
> > a deliberate attempt to fracture.
No, that's reading more
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 15:06:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
No, the OP clearly stated that he made the group "official".
That is a deliberate attempt to fracture.
I'm sorry you see it like this but my intention when I created
the group was to expand Dlang by bringing it to places
I'm happy it's working for you, but please do not present it as
an "official" group. That implies the foundation is involved in
operating it.
Okay, sorry about that.
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 16:14:59 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 14:14:33 UTC, 9il wrote:
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 14:08:32 UTC, welkam wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 18:05:40 UTC, 9il wrote:
It was a mockery executed by Atila
Read the all
On Saturday, 25 April 2020 at 16:01:03 UTC, bauss wrote:
There is no way to determine the import statements either as
those themselves can be generated at compile-time.
Question: is then DMD capable to add generated source code in
separate files to the compilation process when we can just
On Saturday, 25 April 2020 at 12:30:17 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
But how does this differ from just using make?
make doesn't support total-dependency-content-digest keying of
cached artifacts similar to what, for instance, Bazel does.
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 16:14:59 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 14:14:33 UTC, 9il wrote:
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 14:08:32 UTC, welkam wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 18:05:40 UTC, 9il wrote:
It was a mockery executed by Atila
Read the all
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 14:14:33 UTC, 9il wrote:
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 14:08:32 UTC, welkam wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 18:05:40 UTC, 9il wrote:
It was a mockery executed by Atila
Read the all comments and didnt saw any mockery
Yes, it wasn't explicit. He
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 15:36:47 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
I see what you are saying, but that is a "controlling" position
to hold.
Once a language break into the mainstream, there is no way to
control the community. Any attempt to contain the community to
this or that medium is
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 15:06:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
The topic is what approach is more strategic.
I see what you are saying, but that is a "controlling" position
to hold.
Once a language break into the mainstream, there is no way to
control the community. Any attempt
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 15:16:24 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 15:06:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
hostile ad hominem tone
[...]
deliberate attempt to fracture.
tu quoque.
Let's not assume any motives here. I wouldn't call it
"official" either (and
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 15:06:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
hostile ad hominem tone
[...]
deliberate attempt to fracture.
tu quoque.
Let's not assume any motives here. I wouldn't call it "official"
either (and indeed, the title on facebook doesn't include that
word) but no
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 14:53:43 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 11:34:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
Sorry but I don't think you get it.
So, this hostile ad hominem tone is why it is beneficial with
local groups... I've studied online communities for
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 11:34:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Not quite, if you split up then each community might have
stronger social bonding, but in terms of aggregating helpful
advice you will be worse off. It would be suitable for
geographic groups (e.g. for a country/city).
https://forum.dlang.org/post/osdrmatpxllbvwmkt...@forum.dlang.org
On Monday, 13 January 2020 at 02:09:14 UTC, zoujiaqing wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 at 08:32:37 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
more: all critically important foundational technologies that
await a standard abstraction for
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 13:04:42 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
You have a valid point, but still I am sure the facebook group
is a net positive for the community. I'd see it as a digital
version of a local user group.
It certainly has some benefits, especially in the past when there
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 13:04:42 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
You have a valid point, but still I am sure the facebook group
is a net positive for the community. I'd see it as a digital
version of a local user group.
Yeah, I see no problem with the group existing. I think it's
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 11:34:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Not quite, if you split up then each community might have
stronger social bonding, but in terms of aggregating helpful
advice you will be worse off. It would be suitable for
geographic groups (e.g. for a country/city).
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 11:34:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
For instance slashdot is very poor in social boding terms, but
much better than the dlang forums for aggregating helpful
advice. So the "learn" forum is beneficial socially, but does
erode the slashdot presence.
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 10:52:53 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 09:05:45 UTC, aberba wrote:
So I'm sure the Facebook group will appeal to a certain
audience who use Facebook. I've been a part of all sorts of
Facebook groups related to my stack and I've
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 10:48:55 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 23:14:16 UTC, Mathias LANG
wrote:
[...]
Mathias, reduced test case below (dustmined), thank you!
[...]
Manually reduced to:
---
import std.typecons : Nullable;
import std.array : array;
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 09:05:45 UTC, aberba wrote:
So I'm sure the Facebook group will appeal to a certain
audience who use Facebook. I've been a part of all sorts of
Facebook groups related to my stack and I've come to the
understand it's what certain people even prefer.
+1
It's
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 23:14:16 UTC, Mathias LANG wrote:
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 21:59:31 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
My point is that the result without -de is
[...]
Which unfortunately is pretty useless in my case ...
Could you point me towards the code that triggers
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 00:17:59 UTC, Mathias LANG wrote:
Yes please! And thanks for paying attention to the changelog,
it matters a lot!
Done: https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2926
On Monday, 28 December 2020 at 17:31:21 UTC, Murilo wrote:
In the past 2 weeks we went from 225 to 240 members in our
Facebook
group(https://www.facebook.com/groups/ProgrammingInDlang), an
average of a person per day. First it was an average of a
person per month or less. I wonder if someone
On 12/29/20 1:42 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/28/20 9:31 AM, Murilo wrote:
> they thought a Facebook group was unnecessary,
Not only unnecessary but divisive as well. For example, because I will
never have a Facebook account I would never be a part of that group.
+1
28 matches
Mail list logo
