• Matthew (53/53) Jan 08 2004 Monsieurs et madams
• Brad Anderson (6/60) Jan 08 2004 I'd be happy to help:
• Phill (9/62) Jan 08 2004 I'd love to review it, but I have not had much
• Matthew (59/140) Jan 08 2004 Primarily, a reviewer would do the following:
• Walter (12/16) Jan 08 2004 up
• Mark T (3/10) Jan 09 2004 This would be a great audience to solicit votes for comp.lang.d.
• Walter (6/13) Jan 09 2004 coincide
• John Reimer (18/64) Jan 09 2004 On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:44:41 +1100, Matthew wrote:
• C (26/90) Jan 09 2004 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is u...
• J Anderson (2/7) Jan 09 2004 I always use the term "constructive criticism" rather then just criticis...
• John Reimer (14/21) Jan 09 2004 Heh! Oops! Wasn't my intention. I was just wondering if he knew
• Matthew (58/157) Jan 09 2004 No. Critique is an American English-ism that, as far as I understand (wh...
• Phill (32/193) Jan 09 2004 yes, and the reason that we say "he has two dicks" is
• John Reimer (32/67) Jan 09 2004 I wasn't going to get into this...but somebody's got to answer this Engl...
• Matthew (105/175) Jan 09 2004 (which
• John Reimer (11/43) Jan 09 2004 Very hard, indeed. Perhaps I was too harsh on the Canadian culture (*oo...
• Georg Wrede (6/9) Jan 09 2004 (... a very interesting discussion ignored here)
• John Reimer (6/9) Jan 09 2004 LOL. You are right. I might be best to stay away from it! Or be much ...
• Matthew (29/39) Jan 09 2004 look at
• John Reimer (8/19) Jan 10 2004 You've been productive. Ever learn to juggle?!
• Matthew (3/12) Jan 09 2004 LOL!
• Ilya Minkov (12/47) Jan 09 2004 Perhaps. But you know how hard is it to put something like that
• Alix Pexton (24/28) Jan 09 2004 Hi all,

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

Monsieurs et madams

We're hoping to get The D Journal happening this year - only two years after
it was first mooted <G> - and with the talk of the release of D 1.0, and a
possible comp.lang.d, maybe now is the right time to start thinking about
it.

I'm still happy to provide editorial functions, as long as there are
sufficient people
who will volunteer for other duties, e.g. reviewing, document formatting,
web-site stuff, etc.

I still feel the original format is a good one:

    - bi-monthly (i.e. every two months, not twice a month)
    - online format only. It would be nice to have a downloadable PDF
version also, if anyone has the wherewithall (i.e. a to-PDF converter) to do
that.
    - 2-4 articles (2,000 - 4,000 words)
    - Tips section: 2-5 tips, each of ~400 words
    - Notes: 1 paragraph mini-tips, dotted around the issue
    - WFW (Word From Walter)

We need:
    - a group of 5-10 reviewers, preferably with good experience in D and
extensive experience in at least one other language
    - people who are good with design and website preparation. Hopefully
Alix (Pexton) is still keen. Alix was the original webmaster on our
tentative attempt the first time round. I'm sure we won't waste any amount
of graphic/web design talent, so please volunteer.

And of course we need article/tip/note material. Before anyone goes to the
trouble of writing them, can you just submit proposals, according to the
instructions on http://www.thedjournal.com/papers.html.

FYI, my timetable is mega chocker this month, and pretty much so next month,
but I should still be able to read through proposals during quiet moments,
so I
think a realistic schedule to work towards is

 - people submit their proposals in Jan
 - I'll get back on them in during Feb
 - material written in March

Then, depending on how many volunteers we have for the draft reviewing and
checking, and the document/web preparation, we could hope to get the first
version out sometime in April. Does this sound good to everyone?

The success or otherwise of this will depend on you, so I leave it in your
hands. :)

Cheers


-- 
Matthew Wilson

Director, Synesis Software (www.synesis.com.au)
STLSoft moderator (http://www.stlsoft.org)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
(www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)

Synesis Software Pty Ltd
P.O.Box 125
Waverley
New South Wales, 2024
Australia

-----------------------------------------------------

Brad Anderson <brad sankaty.dot.com> writes:

I'd be happy to help:

a.  web design
b.  newbie articles and/or tips

I'll watch this thread for volunteers, as well as further instruction from
Matthew.

Brad

Matthew wrote:
 Monsieurs et madams
 
 We're hoping to get The D Journal happening this year - only two years after
 it was first mooted <G> - and with the talk of the release of D 1.0, and a
 possible comp.lang.d, maybe now is the right time to start thinking about
 it.
 
 I'm still happy to provide editorial functions, as long as there are
 sufficient people
 who will volunteer for other duties, e.g. reviewing, document formatting,
 web-site stuff, etc.
 
 I still feel the original format is a good one:
 
     - bi-monthly (i.e. every two months, not twice a month)
     - online format only. It would be nice to have a downloadable PDF
 version also, if anyone has the wherewithall (i.e. a to-PDF converter) to do
 that.
     - 2-4 articles (2,000 - 4,000 words)
     - Tips section: 2-5 tips, each of ~400 words
     - Notes: 1 paragraph mini-tips, dotted around the issue
     - WFW (Word From Walter)
 
 We need:
     - a group of 5-10 reviewers, preferably with good experience in D and
 extensive experience in at least one other language
     - people who are good with design and website preparation. Hopefully
 Alix (Pexton) is still keen. Alix was the original webmaster on our
 tentative attempt the first time round. I'm sure we won't waste any amount
 of graphic/web design talent, so please volunteer.
 
 And of course we need article/tip/note material. Before anyone goes to the
 trouble of writing them, can you just submit proposals, according to the
 instructions on http://www.thedjournal.com/papers.html.
 
 FYI, my timetable is mega chocker this month, and pretty much so next month,
 but I should still be able to read through proposals during quiet moments,
 so I
 think a realistic schedule to work towards is
 
  - people submit their proposals in Jan
  - I'll get back on them in during Feb
  - material written in March
 
 Then, depending on how many volunteers we have for the draft reviewing and
 checking, and the document/web preparation, we could hope to get the first
 version out sometime in April. Does this sound good to everyone?
 
 The success or otherwise of this will depend on you, so I leave it in your
 hands. :)
 
 Cheers
 
 

"Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:

I'd love to review it, but I have not had much
experience with D up to this time. It depends
on what is required.

Phill.


"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:btkokk$14gr$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Monsieurs et madams

 We're hoping to get The D Journal happening this year - only two years

after
 it was first mooted <G> - and with the talk of the release of D 1.0, and a
 possible comp.lang.d, maybe now is the right time to start thinking about
 it.

 I'm still happy to provide editorial functions, as long as there are
 sufficient people
 who will volunteer for other duties, e.g. reviewing, document formatting,
 web-site stuff, etc.

 I still feel the original format is a good one:

     - bi-monthly (i.e. every two months, not twice a month)
     - online format only. It would be nice to have a downloadable PDF
 version also, if anyone has the wherewithall (i.e. a to-PDF converter) to

do
 that.
     - 2-4 articles (2,000 - 4,000 words)
     - Tips section: 2-5 tips, each of ~400 words
     - Notes: 1 paragraph mini-tips, dotted around the issue
     - WFW (Word From Walter)

 We need:
     - a group of 5-10 reviewers, preferably with good experience in D and
 extensive experience in at least one other language
     - people who are good with design and website preparation. Hopefully
 Alix (Pexton) is still keen. Alix was the original webmaster on our
 tentative attempt the first time round. I'm sure we won't waste any amount
 of graphic/web design talent, so please volunteer.

 And of course we need article/tip/note material. Before anyone goes to the
 trouble of writing them, can you just submit proposals, according to the
 instructions on http://www.thedjournal.com/papers.html.

 FYI, my timetable is mega chocker this month, and pretty much so next

month,
 but I should still be able to read through proposals during quiet moments,
 so I
 think a realistic schedule to work towards is

  - people submit their proposals in Jan
  - I'll get back on them in during Feb
  - material written in March

 Then, depending on how many volunteers we have for the draft reviewing and
 checking, and the document/web preparation, we could hope to get the first
 version out sometime in April. Does this sound good to everyone?

 The success or otherwise of this will depend on you, so I leave it in your
 hands. :)

 Cheers


 --
 Matthew Wilson

 Director, Synesis Software (www.synesis.com.au)
 STLSoft moderator (http://www.stlsoft.org)
 Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
 (www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)

 Synesis Software Pty Ltd
 P.O.Box 125
 Waverley
 New South Wales, 2024
 Australia

 -----------------------------------------------------

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

Primarily, a reviewer would do the following:

 1. Criticise the techniques described, i.e. whether they're a good idea or
not. (Note: I'm using criticise in its standard meaning, whereby criticism
can have negative and positive connotations.)
 2. Validate the techniques, i.e. test that the code compiles, verify any
performance/effectiveness claims, etc.
 3. Comment on the originality, i.e. try to spot any plagiarism. As with any
other publishing, authors will be expected to stipulate that techniques are
their own work, or provide fair attribution to original authors, or to
simply state that "this is a widely used technique"
 4. Comment on whether the techniques described are sufficiently interesting
to go in the journal.

That all sounds a bit formal and drab, but in reality I expect it to be a
straightforward and enjoyable experience for all. (One of my prime
motivations for this is to learn a lot more about D!) I'll make sure
submissions are passed anonymously to authors, so that everything's seen to
be fair and above board. And reviewers are, of course, invited (perhaps
expected?!) to contribute their own articles/tips/notes.

Reviewers are needed because (i) I simply won't have time to do the
reviewing, (ii) I don't know enough about the full spread of D facilities,
and (iii) having only one or two people doing the reviewing will lead to a
biased publication. As you all know, Walter, myself and many others have
somewhat fixed and strong opinions. Letting any one person dictate the
subject matter will make the journal an unpopular mouthpiece, rather than an
informed and dispationate source of information.

Even though the idea's nearly two years old, we have high hopes for The D
Journal. Hopefully it can quickly become a source of reliable, practical and
informative information for the practise of D.

Therefore it's up to all of you guys to contribute; that's your only
motivation for the moment. Naturally, in its initial online, unadvertised,
free form, it will not be paying anyone any fees, so it's just fame and
philanthropism for the first year or two. For my part, I've got permission
from CUJ to do this, and in fact they've been quite encouraging, which in
and of itself is a great sign that D is being noticed in the right places.

But if D makes it as far as many think it will, you'll have the honour of
being there on the ground floor, and maybe your words will become legend,
just as those early writings in the C++ Report are now C++ lore and bound up
in book form.

Cheers


-- 
Matthew Wilson

Director, Synesis Software (www.synesis.com.au)
STLSoft moderator (http://www.stlsoft.org)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
(www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)

-----------------------------------------------------



"Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:btlcoj$22ls$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'd love to review it, but I have not had much
 experience with D up to this time. It depends
 on what is required.

 Phill.


 "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
 news:btkokk$14gr$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Monsieurs et madams

 We're hoping to get The D Journal happening this year - only two years

 after
 it was first mooted <G> - and with the talk of the release of D 1.0, and


a
 possible comp.lang.d, maybe now is the right time to start thinking


about
 it.

 I'm still happy to provide editorial functions, as long as there are
 sufficient people
 who will volunteer for other duties, e.g. reviewing, document


formatting,
 web-site stuff, etc.

 I still feel the original format is a good one:

     - bi-monthly (i.e. every two months, not twice a month)
     - online format only. It would be nice to have a downloadable PDF
 version also, if anyone has the wherewithall (i.e. a to-PDF converter)


to
 do
 that.
     - 2-4 articles (2,000 - 4,000 words)
     - Tips section: 2-5 tips, each of ~400 words
     - Notes: 1 paragraph mini-tips, dotted around the issue
     - WFW (Word From Walter)

 We need:
     - a group of 5-10 reviewers, preferably with good experience in D


and
 extensive experience in at least one other language
     - people who are good with design and website preparation. Hopefully
 Alix (Pexton) is still keen. Alix was the original webmaster on our
 tentative attempt the first time round. I'm sure we won't waste any


amount
 of graphic/web design talent, so please volunteer.

 And of course we need article/tip/note material. Before anyone goes to


the
 trouble of writing them, can you just submit proposals, according to the
 instructions on http://www.thedjournal.com/papers.html.

 FYI, my timetable is mega chocker this month, and pretty much so next

 month,
 but I should still be able to read through proposals during quiet


moments,
 so I
 think a realistic schedule to work towards is

  - people submit their proposals in Jan
  - I'll get back on them in during Feb
  - material written in March

 Then, depending on how many volunteers we have for the draft reviewing


and
 checking, and the document/web preparation, we could hope to get the


first
 version out sometime in April. Does this sound good to everyone?

 The success or otherwise of this will depend on you, so I leave it in


your
 hands. :)

 Cheers


 --
 Matthew Wilson

 Director, Synesis Software (www.synesis.com.au)
 STLSoft moderator (http://www.stlsoft.org)
 Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
 (www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)

 Synesis Software Pty Ltd
 P.O.Box 125
 Waverley
 New South Wales, 2024
 Australia

 -----------------------------------------------------

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:btlij3$2but$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 But if D makes it as far as many think it will, you'll have the honour of
 being there on the ground floor, and maybe your words will become legend,
 just as those early writings in the C++ Report are now C++ lore and bound

up
 in book form.

I've been incommunicado for a couple of days, as an ice storm pulled down
all the cables around here. But just the volume of messages posted here in
the meantime is telling me that D is really gaining momentum. I'm giving an
introduction to D at SDWest in March, and am planning for that to coincide
with D 1.0. We're attracting the attention of some very influential people
in the programming business.

It's the interest, enthusiasm, and help from the D newsgroup participants
here that is behind making this all happen. We're all here at the beginning
of something big.

Mark T <Mark_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <btlmv7$2ifv$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
 I'm giving an
introduction to D at SDWest in March, and am planning for that to coincide
with D 1.0. We're attracting the attention of some very influential people
in the programming business.

This would be a great audience to solicit votes for comp.lang.d. 
Anyone going? 

It's the interest, enthusiasm, and help from the D newsgroup participants
here that is behind making this all happen. We're all here at the beginning
of something big.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Mark T" <Mark_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:btntun$30od$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <btlmv7$2ifv$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
 I'm giving an
introduction to D at SDWest in March, and am planning for that to


coincide
with D 1.0. We're attracting the attention of some very influential


people
in the programming business.

 This would be a great audience to solicit votes for comp.lang.d.
 Anyone going?

I agree. That's why I think we should wait on trying to launch comp.lang.d
until then.

John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:44:41 +1100, Matthew wrote:

Here! Here! That's the way to motivate the ranks! I'll do what I can also.
I'm willing to do my small part of reviewing and (and eventually
contributing).

Time is a shortage for everyone, I'm sure; but the more people involved
the better.  And besides, I spend so much time perusing the copious
amounts of information on this newsgroup that I think I could re-apportion
some of the time to the D Journal project.

For those of us that DON'T feel like D experts, I'm sure there are still
plenty of D-related topics that would suite our level (besides reviewing):
D on different linux distributions, coverage of D toolkits, D history, D
to <language> comparisons (well maybe leave this for the experts), D games
(yeah!), D competitions, interviews with the designer/creator ...etc, etc.

Looks like fun.  I think your right: the time of the D Journal has come.

Later,

John

PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is
used in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

 Primarily, a reviewer would do the following:
 
  1. Criticise the techniques described, i.e. whether they're a good idea or
 not. (Note: I'm using criticise in its standard meaning, whereby criticism
 can have negative and positive connotations.)
  2. Validate the techniques, i.e. test that the code compiles, verify any
 performance/effectiveness claims, etc.
  3. Comment on the originality, i.e. try to spot any plagiarism. As with any
 other publishing, authors will be expected to stipulate that techniques are
 their own work, or provide fair attribution to original authors, or to
 simply state that "this is a widely used technique"
  4. Comment on whether the techniques described are sufficiently interesting
 to go in the journal.
 
 That all sounds a bit formal and drab, but in reality I expect it to be a
 straightforward and enjoyable experience for all. (One of my prime
 motivations for this is to learn a lot more about D!) I'll make sure
 submissions are passed anonymously to authors, so that everything's seen to
 be fair and above board. And reviewers are, of course, invited (perhaps
 expected?!) to contribute their own articles/tips/notes.
 
 Reviewers are needed because (i) I simply won't have time to do the
 reviewing, (ii) I don't know enough about the full spread of D facilities,
 and (iii) having only one or two people doing the reviewing will lead to a
 biased publication. As you all know, Walter, myself and many others have
 somewhat fixed and strong opinions. Letting any one person dictate the
 subject matter will make the journal an unpopular mouthpiece, rather than an
 informed and dispationate source of information.
 
 Even though the idea's nearly two years old, we have high hopes for The D
 Journal. Hopefully it can quickly become a source of reliable, practical and
 informative information for the practise of D.
 
 Therefore it's up to all of you guys to contribute; that's your only
 motivation for the moment. Naturally, in its initial online, unadvertised,
 free form, it will not be paying anyone any fees, so it's just fame and
 philanthropism for the first year or two. For my part, I've got permission
 from CUJ to do this, and in fact they've been quite encouraging, which in
 and of itself is a great sign that D is being noticed in the right places.
 
 But if D makes it as far as many think it will, you'll have the honour of
 being there on the ground floor, and maybe your words will become legend,
 just as those early writings in the C++ Report are now C++ lore and bound up
 in book form.
 
 Cheers

"C" <dont respond.com> writes:

PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is used
in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

lol, good catch!  you're already reviewing :).

C

"John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.09.08.01.06.174809 telus.net...
 On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:44:41 +1100, Matthew wrote:

 Here! Here! That's the way to motivate the ranks! I'll do what I can also.
 I'm willing to do my small part of reviewing and (and eventually
 contributing).

 Time is a shortage for everyone, I'm sure; but the more people involved
 the better.  And besides, I spend so much time perusing the copious
 amounts of information on this newsgroup that I think I could re-apportion
 some of the time to the D Journal project.

 For those of us that DON'T feel like D experts, I'm sure there are still
 plenty of D-related topics that would suite our level (besides reviewing):
 D on different linux distributions, coverage of D toolkits, D history, D
 to <language> comparisons (well maybe leave this for the experts), D games
 (yeah!), D competitions, interviews with the designer/creator ...etc, etc.

 Looks like fun.  I think your right: the time of the D Journal has come.

 Later,

 John

 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is
 used in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

 Primarily, a reviewer would do the following:

  1. Criticise the techniques described, i.e. whether they're a good idea


or
 not. (Note: I'm using criticise in its standard meaning, whereby


criticism
 can have negative and positive connotations.)
  2. Validate the techniques, i.e. test that the code compiles, verify


any
 performance/effectiveness claims, etc.
  3. Comment on the originality, i.e. try to spot any plagiarism. As with


any
 other publishing, authors will be expected to stipulate that techniques


are
 their own work, or provide fair attribution to original authors, or to
 simply state that "this is a widely used technique"
  4. Comment on whether the techniques described are sufficiently


interesting
 to go in the journal.

 That all sounds a bit formal and drab, but in reality I expect it to be


a
 straightforward and enjoyable experience for all. (One of my prime
 motivations for this is to learn a lot more about D!) I'll make sure
 submissions are passed anonymously to authors, so that everything's seen


to
 be fair and above board. And reviewers are, of course, invited (perhaps
 expected?!) to contribute their own articles/tips/notes.

 Reviewers are needed because (i) I simply won't have time to do the
 reviewing, (ii) I don't know enough about the full spread of D


facilities,
 and (iii) having only one or two people doing the reviewing will lead to


a
 biased publication. As you all know, Walter, myself and many others have
 somewhat fixed and strong opinions. Letting any one person dictate the
 subject matter will make the journal an unpopular mouthpiece, rather


than an
 informed and dispationate source of information.

 Even though the idea's nearly two years old, we have high hopes for The


D
 Journal. Hopefully it can quickly become a source of reliable, practical


and
 informative information for the practise of D.

 Therefore it's up to all of you guys to contribute; that's your only
 motivation for the moment. Naturally, in its initial online,


unadvertised,
 free form, it will not be paying anyone any fees, so it's just fame and
 philanthropism for the first year or two. For my part, I've got


permission
 from CUJ to do this, and in fact they've been quite encouraging, which


in
 and of itself is a great sign that D is being noticed in the right


places.
 But if D makes it as far as many think it will, you'll have the honour


of
 being there on the ground floor, and maybe your words will become


legend,
 just as those early writings in the C++ Report are now C++ lore and


bound up
 in book form.

 Cheers

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

C wrote:

PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is used
in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

lol, good catch!  you're already reviewing :).

C
  

I always use the term "constructive criticism" rather then just criticism".

John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:

C wrote:
 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is used
 in a more purposeful and forceful context here.
 
 lol, good catch!  you're already reviewing :).
 
 C
 

Heh! Oops!  Wasn't my intention. I was just wondering if he knew 
something about the term that I didn't.  Matthew's got so much 
experience in the writing field that I almost daren't question him. 
No matter. He mentions positive and negative meaning connotiations, and 
I forgot about the two.  He's right, of course. But "to critique" is 
actually equal to the positive connotation.  "To criticise" just seems 
to carry a weightier application.

"Critiquing" is the softer use of the two in the English language. He 
may have wanted to use "Criticise" to stress getting the job done over 
reviewer acquiescence.  Perhaps I'd say criticise is to proofreading, as 
critiquing is to reviewing.  Proofreaders axe without impunity (I know 
that for a fact). :-(

John

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is

used
 in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

No. Critique is an American English-ism that, as far as I understand (which
may not be that far; I have scant philological expertise), is intended to
connote "good intentions". This seems to be along the lines of the US "have
a nice day" (instead of simply goodbyte) and the Australian "that's sooo
good" (instead of simple "that's ok") saccharin over-politeness that peoples
of less politically sensitive cultures find faintly silly.

When the English say criticise they mean to analyse, whether good or bad,
whereas it seems that Americans (and lately some Australians) require the
additional "verbised" (since it's only recently been promoted from noun to
verb for this purpose) critique to avoid hinting that something negative
might be said.

Of course, one man's pointless nannying may be another person's necessary
societal grease, and until one has lived in a given country it's not fair to
judge. All I can say is that having come from England to Australia - which
is said to be halfway between England and the US in culture - I find all the
insincerity irritating. You never know whether anyone really does think
something is good or not, since Aussies are hyperbolic ("she's *so* clever",
"that guy's a *world class* business development guru", and other to-the-max
comparisons) a good half of the time. They also do the annoyingly insincere,
but quite funnny, thing in the the automatic greeting handshake "Hello, how
are you?" + "Good thanks, how are you?". I used to amuse myself by
responding to recruiters calling by just saying "Hi", since without fail
they'd still say "Fine thanks", before I was ground down and joined the
hot-air party. In fact, a Greek-Australian comedien has a trademark "Hello,
good thanks" to her interviewees which begin the one-sided verbal onslaughts
with her interviewees. :)

Curiously, the other half of the time the Aussies will tell you not to be a
wanker - the funniest being that "he/she's got two dicks" - and to pull your
head out of your arse, which may be the English side of their culture coming
out. The downside of that is that they've almost as keen as the Pomms
(that's what they call us; you'd probably say Limeys) to knock people down
when they've achieved something (one of the reasons I left England), and
this is called the Tall-Poppy Syndrome (where you have your head cut off if
you grow taller than your peers.) I am led to believe that this is *not* the
American way, which is a jolly good thing, IMO.

Anyway, it's all good education for living in the global village. No doubt
if we make the move to the US in the near future, me and my bluntly
Australian wife will have to learn to wear an extra veneer of caution in
verbalising our thoughts. :)

Yours bluntly

Oswald the 'Orrible

 lol, good catch!  you're already reviewing :).

 C

 "John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message
 news:pan.2004.01.09.08.01.06.174809 telus.net...
 On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:44:41 +1100, Matthew wrote:

 Here! Here! That's the way to motivate the ranks! I'll do what I can


also.
 I'm willing to do my small part of reviewing and (and eventually
 contributing).

 Time is a shortage for everyone, I'm sure; but the more people involved
 the better.  And besides, I spend so much time perusing the copious
 amounts of information on this newsgroup that I think I could


re-apportion
 some of the time to the D Journal project.

 For those of us that DON'T feel like D experts, I'm sure there are still
 plenty of D-related topics that would suite our level (besides


reviewing):
 D on different linux distributions, coverage of D toolkits, D history, D
 to <language> comparisons (well maybe leave this for the experts), D


games
 (yeah!), D competitions, interviews with the designer/creator ...etc,


etc.
 Looks like fun.  I think your right: the time of the D Journal has come.

 Later,

 John

 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is
 used in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

 Primarily, a reviewer would do the following:

  1. Criticise the techniques described, i.e. whether they're a good



idea
 or
 not. (Note: I'm using criticise in its standard meaning, whereby


 criticism
 can have negative and positive connotations.)
  2. Validate the techniques, i.e. test that the code compiles, verify


 any
 performance/effectiveness claims, etc.
  3. Comment on the originality, i.e. try to spot any plagiarism. As



with
 any
 other publishing, authors will be expected to stipulate that



techniques
 are
 their own work, or provide fair attribution to original authors, or to
 simply state that "this is a widely used technique"
  4. Comment on whether the techniques described are sufficiently


 interesting
 to go in the journal.

 That all sounds a bit formal and drab, but in reality I expect it to



be
 a
 straightforward and enjoyable experience for all. (One of my prime
 motivations for this is to learn a lot more about D!) I'll make sure
 submissions are passed anonymously to authors, so that everything's



seen
 to
 be fair and above board. And reviewers are, of course, invited



(perhaps
 expected?!) to contribute their own articles/tips/notes.

 Reviewers are needed because (i) I simply won't have time to do the
 reviewing, (ii) I don't know enough about the full spread of D


 facilities,
 and (iii) having only one or two people doing the reviewing will lead



to
 a
 biased publication. As you all know, Walter, myself and many others



have
 somewhat fixed and strong opinions. Letting any one person dictate the
 subject matter will make the journal an unpopular mouthpiece, rather


 than an
 informed and dispationate source of information.

 Even though the idea's nearly two years old, we have high hopes for



The
 D
 Journal. Hopefully it can quickly become a source of reliable,



practical
 and
 informative information for the practise of D.

 Therefore it's up to all of you guys to contribute; that's your only
 motivation for the moment. Naturally, in its initial online,


 unadvertised,
 free form, it will not be paying anyone any fees, so it's just fame



and
 philanthropism for the first year or two. For my part, I've got


 permission
 from CUJ to do this, and in fact they've been quite encouraging, which


 in
 and of itself is a great sign that D is being noticed in the right


 places.
 But if D makes it as far as many think it will, you'll have the honour


 of
 being there on the ground floor, and maybe your words will become


 legend,
 just as those early writings in the C++ Report are now C++ lore and


 bound up
 in book form.

 Cheers

"Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:

yes, and the reason that we say  "he has two dicks" is
because he couldnt be that silly pulling one!
 :o))

Phill.

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:btn8u8$1vlb$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is

 used
 in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

 No. Critique is an American English-ism that, as far as I understand

(which
 may not be that far; I have scant philological expertise), is intended to
 connote "good intentions". This seems to be along the lines of the US

"have
 a nice day" (instead of simply goodbyte) and the Australian "that's sooo
 good" (instead of simple "that's ok") saccharin over-politeness that

peoples
 of less politically sensitive cultures find faintly silly.

 When the English say criticise they mean to analyse, whether good or bad,
 whereas it seems that Americans (and lately some Australians) require the
 additional "verbised" (since it's only recently been promoted from noun to
 verb for this purpose) critique to avoid hinting that something negative
 might be said.

 Of course, one man's pointless nannying may be another person's necessary
 societal grease, and until one has lived in a given country it's not fair

to
 judge. All I can say is that having come from England to Australia - which
 is said to be halfway between England and the US in culture - I find all

the
 insincerity irritating. You never know whether anyone really does think
 something is good or not, since Aussies are hyperbolic ("she's *so*

clever",
 "that guy's a *world class* business development guru", and other

to-the-max
 comparisons) a good half of the time. They also do the annoyingly

insincere,
 but quite funnny, thing in the the automatic greeting handshake "Hello,

how
 are you?" + "Good thanks, how are you?". I used to amuse myself by
 responding to recruiters calling by just saying "Hi", since without fail
 they'd still say "Fine thanks", before I was ground down and joined the
 hot-air party. In fact, a Greek-Australian comedien has a trademark

"Hello,
 good thanks" to her interviewees which begin the one-sided verbal

onslaughts
 with her interviewees. :)

 Curiously, the other half of the time the Aussies will tell you not to be

a
 wanker - the funniest being that "he/she's got two dicks" - and to pull

your
 head out of your arse, which may be the English side of their culture

coming
 out. The downside of that is that they've almost as keen as the Pomms
 (that's what they call us; you'd probably say Limeys) to knock people down
 when they've achieved something (one of the reasons I left England), and
 this is called the Tall-Poppy Syndrome (where you have your head cut off

if
 you grow taller than your peers.) I am led to believe that this is *not*

the
 American way, which is a jolly good thing, IMO.

 Anyway, it's all good education for living in the global village. No doubt
 if we make the move to the US in the near future, me and my bluntly
 Australian wife will have to learn to wear an extra veneer of caution in
 verbalising our thoughts. :)

 Yours bluntly

 Oswald the 'Orrible

 lol, good catch!  you're already reviewing :).

 C

 "John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message
 news:pan.2004.01.09.08.01.06.174809 telus.net...
 On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:44:41 +1100, Matthew wrote:

 Here! Here! That's the way to motivate the ranks! I'll do what I can


 also.
 I'm willing to do my small part of reviewing and (and eventually
 contributing).

 Time is a shortage for everyone, I'm sure; but the more people



involved
 the better.  And besides, I spend so much time perusing the copious
 amounts of information on this newsgroup that I think I could


 re-apportion
 some of the time to the D Journal project.

 For those of us that DON'T feel like D experts, I'm sure there are



still
 plenty of D-related topics that would suite our level (besides


 reviewing):
 D on different linux distributions, coverage of D toolkits, D history,



D
 to <language> comparisons (well maybe leave this for the experts), D


 games
 (yeah!), D competitions, interviews with the designer/creator ...etc,


 etc.
 Looks like fun.  I think your right: the time of the D Journal has



come.
 Later,

 John

 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is
 used in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

 Primarily, a reviewer would do the following:

  1. Criticise the techniques described, i.e. whether they're a good



 idea
 or
 not. (Note: I'm using criticise in its standard meaning, whereby


 criticism
 can have negative and positive connotations.)
  2. Validate the techniques, i.e. test that the code compiles,




verify
 any
 performance/effectiveness claims, etc.
  3. Comment on the originality, i.e. try to spot any plagiarism. As



 with
 any
 other publishing, authors will be expected to stipulate that



 techniques
 are
 their own work, or provide fair attribution to original authors, or




to
 simply state that "this is a widely used technique"
  4. Comment on whether the techniques described are sufficiently


 interesting
 to go in the journal.

 That all sounds a bit formal and drab, but in reality I expect it to



 be
 a
 straightforward and enjoyable experience for all. (One of my prime
 motivations for this is to learn a lot more about D!) I'll make sure
 submissions are passed anonymously to authors, so that everything's



 seen
 to
 be fair and above board. And reviewers are, of course, invited



 (perhaps
 expected?!) to contribute their own articles/tips/notes.

 Reviewers are needed because (i) I simply won't have time to do the
 reviewing, (ii) I don't know enough about the full spread of D


 facilities,
 and (iii) having only one or two people doing the reviewing will




lead
 to
 a
 biased publication. As you all know, Walter, myself and many others



 have
 somewhat fixed and strong opinions. Letting any one person dictate




the
 subject matter will make the journal an unpopular mouthpiece, rather


 than an
 informed and dispationate source of information.

 Even though the idea's nearly two years old, we have high hopes for



 The
 D
 Journal. Hopefully it can quickly become a source of reliable,



 practical
 and
 informative information for the practise of D.

 Therefore it's up to all of you guys to contribute; that's your only
 motivation for the moment. Naturally, in its initial online,


 unadvertised,
 free form, it will not be paying anyone any fees, so it's just fame



 and
 philanthropism for the first year or two. For my part, I've got


 permission
 from CUJ to do this, and in fact they've been quite encouraging,




which
 in
 and of itself is a great sign that D is being noticed in the right


 places.
 But if D makes it as far as many think it will, you'll have the




honour
 of
 being there on the ground floor, and maybe your words will become


 legend,
 just as those early writings in the C++ Report are now C++ lore and


 bound up
 in book form.

 Cheers

John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <btn8u8$1vlb$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is

used
 in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

No. Critique is an American English-ism that, as far as I understand (which
may not be that far; I have scant philological expertise), is intended to
connote "good intentions". This seems to be along the lines of the US "have
a nice day" (instead of simply goodbyte) and the Australian "that's sooo
good" (instead of simple "that's ok") saccharin over-politeness that peoples
of less politically sensitive cultures find faintly silly.

I wasn't going to get into this...but somebody's got to answer this Englishman
:-D.

Hmm, never thought the word to be an Americanism (or Canadianism, in my case).
That could be true, but it's deeply ingrained in our dictionaries here, that's
for sure.  "Critique" is used in serious conversation this side of the
hemisphere; as much as a euphimism of "criticise" as it seems, it still carries
a fair bit of weight. I don't put it on the level of a cultural concoction
(although all words originate somewhere).  English is notorious as a language
full of ambiguity.  Therefore any word that clarifies intentions shoud be a
useful adaption, especially, I would think, in writing where it's very easy,
without the benefit of expression and emotion, to put across the wrong feelings.
Au contraire, for the frank and honest person, "critique" can be very useful in
expressing what he or she really means.  Like anything, yes, people can also
abuse the context to avoid confrontation or soften their interaction.  But that
issue is, quite literally, "beyond words".

When the English say criticise they mean to analyse, whether good or bad,
whereas it seems that Americans (and lately some Australians) require the
additional "verbised" (since it's only recently been promoted from noun to
verb for this purpose) critique to avoid hinting that something negative
might be said.

Ha! That's what critique is supposed to mean, but in only the good context.
Like I said above, people may choose to use words as they wish.  It's not the
word's fault! But the more words that express different "moods", the better, I
think.

Of course, one man's pointless nannying may be another person's necessary
societal grease, and until one has lived in a given country it's not fair to
judge. All I can say is that having come from England to Australia - which
is said to be halfway between England and the US in culture - I find all the
insincerity irritating. You never know whether anyone really does think
something is good or not, since Aussies are hyperbolic ("she's *so* clever",
"that guy's a *world class* business development guru", and other to-the-max
comparisons) a good half of the time. They also do the annoyingly insincere,
but quite funnny, thing in the the automatic greeting handshake "Hello, how
are you?" + "Good thanks, how are you?". I used to amuse myself by
responding to recruiters calling by just saying "Hi", since without fail
they'd still say "Fine thanks", before I was ground down and joined the
hot-air party. In fact, a Greek-Australian comedien has a trademark "Hello,
good thanks" to her interviewees which begin the one-sided verbal onslaughts
with her interviewees. :)


CONTRAST: The Canadian Character Profile... Canadians cannot be categorized in
the same group as Americans.  We have our own reputation of peculiar politeness
and wishywashyness.  We apologize for almost anything and everything, but rarely
mean it.  We are very distrustful of anything and everything.  Frankness is not
a strong point.  

Although I would be considered atypical.  I like to be frank and prefer people
to be frank.  Those that posture are almost a waste of time, although I find
myself doing it sometimes inadvertantly :-0 .  I probably just destroyed my
previous argument in favor of "critique" with this paragraph!

Anyway, it's all good education for living in the global village. No doubt
if we make the move to the US in the near future, me and my bluntly
Australian wife will have to learn to wear an extra veneer of caution in
verbalising our thoughts. :)

Yours bluntly

Oswald the 'Orrible

Which is worse, habitual insincerity or false modesty ? ;-)

Analytically yours,

John

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"John Reimer" <John_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:btnd3o$261m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <btn8u8$1vlb$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is

used
 in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

No. Critique is an American English-ism that, as far as I understand


(which
may not be that far; I have scant philological expertise), is intended to
connote "good intentions". This seems to be along the lines of the US


"have
a nice day" (instead of simply goodbyte) and the Australian "that's sooo
good" (instead of simple "that's ok") saccharin over-politeness that


peoples
of less politically sensitive cultures find faintly silly.

 I wasn't going to get into this...but somebody's got to answer this

Englishman
 :-D.

Well, there'd be no point my having written it otherwise ...

(You can tell I've got writer's block on the book at the moment, eh? <G>)

 Hmm, never thought the word to be an Americanism (or Canadianism, in my

case).

I'm pretty sure it is. (That may be all I'm sure of in this discussion.)

 That could be true, but it's deeply ingrained in our dictionaries here,

that's
 for sure.  "Critique" is used in serious conversation this side of the
 hemisphere; as much as a euphimism of "criticise" as it seems, it still

carries
 a fair bit of weight. I don't put it on the level of a cultural concoction
 (although all words originate somewhere).  English is notorious as a

language
 full of ambiguity.

True.

 Therefore any word that clarifies intentions shoud be a
 useful adaption, especially, I would think, in writing where it's very

easy,
 without the benefit of expression and emotion, to put across the wrong

feelings.

Except that much of the rest of the world, whether right or wrong, finds
American culture chock full of contradictions, and this is one of the most
stark, albeit probably the most innocuous. We marvel at how such a combative
(and fundamentally quite brave and good, to be sure) society must wrap
itself and its individual citizens in cotton wool, yet, for (a blunt)
example, let them bear arms and sue each other up the wazoo. :)

For my part, I share the snooty but fundamentally friendly disdain that most
British / Australians / New Zealanders have for the US, but undoubtedly only
because every society/culture thinks that its best. (If we could elide
cultural superiority and religious dogma, there'd not be much left to fight
about, methinks.) But I am also cluey enough to see that the US probably
represents, in many respects, a destination point for other cultures. Here
in Australia, the culture is getting more multi-ethnic, and there are
therefore extra cautions that must be taken. What's an amusing quip in one
culture is the start of a blood-feud in another, as we are seeing here with
a worrying spate of gangland killings in some ethnically polarised suburbs
of Sydney at the moment - our first real taste of unabashed gun-toting gang
revenge killings.

The same's happening back home in the UK, and I guess it must come to all
countries with net immigration. I guess I'm a case in point: coming to
Australia and reproducing and disrupting the Australian status-quo by making
my kids use correct grammar. <G>

 Au contraire, for the frank and honest person, "critique" can be very

useful in
 expressing what he or she really means.  Like anything, yes, people can

also
 abuse the context to avoid confrontation or soften their interaction.  But

that
 issue is, quite literally, "beyond words".

I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this issue, and that's probably what got me to
even respond to you guys and your "critique?" posts. I very much value
politeness, but at the same time I despise political correctness.
Australia's a real funny place to live when you're conflicted in this way.

I remember being horrified for several years at the general use of the term
Wog. In Australia this is a somewhat affectionate term for people of
Mediterranean ethnicity; in Britain it is an *extremently* offensive term
for black people, exactly equivalent to the N-word in the US. (I've read the
book, and I know I'm not qualified to say it even in an analytical sense, so
I know not to spell it out!) The first few times I heard people saying it I
can recall actually having my heart racing in anticipation of some ugly
scenes developing.

I can remember having huge rows with friends here trying to explain how
being called a white-bastard in a predominantly white country is not
equivalent to an Aboriginal being called a "black fella" or, my least
favourite word ever, a coon.

But the other side of Australian society has the classic white/male/affluent
guilt, and promulgates all the nonsensical side of political correctness.
There are person-hole covers, not manhole covers. I even heard a tennis
commentator bashfully correct himself because he was talking about the
ball-boys and ball-girls before being prompted by the co-commentator that
they are all ball-persons. It's the same deal with blackboard vs chalkboard.
This then feeds back into the reactionary side of society who resist change
even more. I've had conversations with people who comment on the absurdity
of having to use the term chalkboard, and then in the next breath they're
telling you that the golleywogs should have been left on the jam (that's
jelly to you NW folks) jars!

When the English say criticise they mean to analyse, whether good or bad,
whereas it seems that Americans (and lately some Australians) require the
additional "verbised" (since it's only recently been promoted from noun


to
verb for this purpose) critique to avoid hinting that something negative
might be said.

 Ha! That's what critique is supposed to mean, but in only the good

context.
 Like I said above, people may choose to use words as they wish.  It's not

the
 word's fault! But the more words that express different "moods", the

better, I
 think.

Of course, one man's pointless nannying may be another person's necessary
societal grease, and until one has lived in a given country it's not fair


to
judge. All I can say is that having come from England to Australia -


which
is said to be halfway between England and the US in culture - I find all


the
insincerity irritating. You never know whether anyone really does think
something is good or not, since Aussies are hyperbolic ("she's *so*


clever",
"that guy's a *world class* business development guru", and other


to-the-max
comparisons) a good half of the time. They also do the annoyingly


insincere,
but quite funnny, thing in the the automatic greeting handshake "Hello,


how
are you?" + "Good thanks, how are you?". I used to amuse myself by
responding to recruiters calling by just saying "Hi", since without fail
they'd still say "Fine thanks", before I was ground down and joined the
hot-air party. In fact, a Greek-Australian comedien has a trademark


"Hello,
good thanks" to her interviewees which begin the one-sided verbal


onslaughts
with her interviewees. :)


 CONTRAST: The Canadian Character Profile... Canadians cannot be

categorized in
 the same group as Americans.  We have our own reputation of peculiar

politeness
 and wishywashyness.  We apologize for almost anything and everything, but

rarely
 mean it.  We are very distrustful of anything and everything.  Frankness

is not
 a strong point.

How do you ever know when someone's being honest? Too hard.

 Although I would be considered atypical.  I like to be frank and prefer

people
 to be frank.  Those that posture are almost a waste of time, although I

find
 myself doing it sometimes inadvertantly :-0 .  I probably just destroyed

my
 previous argument in favor of "critique" with this paragraph!

Anyway, it's all good education for living in the global village. No


doubt
if we make the move to the US in the near future, me and my bluntly
Australian wife will have to learn to wear an extra veneer of caution in
verbalising our thoughts. :)

Yours bluntly

Oswald the 'Orrible

 Which is worse, habitual insincerity or false modesty ? ;-)

Well, I'm sure you realise that underpinning much of the middle/upper class
English self-deprecation is an absolute and innate sense of superiority. We
probably get that from the French, who's blood has been cursing round our
veins (and those of our American cousins) for the last 940 years. The other
part of Englishness would be, in my utterly amateurish guestimation, from
our Celtic background; when my son asks me what all that hairy stuff on my
back is I tell him it's the legacy of thousands of years of our warrior
fathers <G>! Arrogance on both sides, but probably no different from
everyone else in the world. In fact, I'd be interested to know if anyone
could name more than 10 countries who's cultures are not arrogant.

Anyway, we've gone waaaaayy OT. I'm just glad we're all of the D culture
here, and everybody's simply delightful. I shall have to remember that John
may be dissembling in the future though ...

Yours with salt firmly pinched

Dr Proctor

John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:

Well, there'd be no point my having written it otherwise ...

(You can tell I've got writer's block on the book at the moment, eh? <G>)

:-) Good use of a Canadianism "eh?", well placed, subtley appended.

I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this issue, and that's probably what got me to
even respond to you guys and your "critique?" posts. I very much value
politeness, but at the same time I despise political correctness.
Australia's a real funny place to live when you're conflicted in this way.

Manners are a virtue. And I concur on your analysis of political correctness.

 CONTRAST: The Canadian Character Profile... Canadians cannot be

categorized in
 the same group as Americans.  We have our own reputation of peculiar

politeness
 and wishywashyness.  We apologize for almost anything and everything, but

rarely
 mean it.  We are very distrustful of anything and everything.  Frankness

is not
 a strong point.

How do you ever know when someone's being honest? Too hard.

Very hard, indeed.  Perhaps I was too harsh on the Canadian culture (*oops*
there I go vacillating).

 Which is worse, habitual insincerity or false modesty ? ;-)

Well, I'm sure you realise that underpinning much of the middle/upper class
English self-deprecation is an absolute and innate sense of superiority. We
probably get that from the French, who's blood has been cursing round our
veins (and those of our American cousins) for the last 940 years. The other
part of Englishness would be, in my utterly amateurish guestimation, from
our Celtic background; when my son asks me what all that hairy stuff on my
back is I tell him it's the legacy of thousands of years of our warrior
fathers <G>! Arrogance on both sides, but probably no different from
everyone else in the world. In fact, I'd be interested to know if anyone
could name more than 10 countries who's cultures are not arrogant.

Ha ha! Wow, you did get my drift then.

Anyway, we've gone waaaaayy OT. I'm just glad we're all of the D culture
here, and everybody's simply delightful. I shall have to remember that John
may be dissembling in the future though ...

Touche! :-)

This is about the only group in which we could get away with this.  Once again,
Matthew, you have provided an entertaining read.  I'll have to check out your
book and see how you dazzle your readers there :-).   

Apologetically,

John

Georg Wrede <Georg_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <btnh4g$2d2n$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
"John Reimer" <John_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 In article <btn8u8$1vlb$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...


And the other contributors.
 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize"




(... a very interesting discussion ignored here)

Well, this really seems to be an exponentially growing discussion
about something that started out, more or less, as hair splitting.

I'd hate to be on the D journal review board.   :-(

John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:

Well, this really seems to be an exponentially growing discussion
about something that started out, more or less, as hair splitting.

Yes, it was hairsplitting. Hardly something I should have started.  But look at
all the goodies I got from Matthew. :-D.

I'd hate to be on the D journal review board.   :-(

LOL.  You are right.  I might be best to stay away from it!  Or be much more
accommodating :-D.

Later,

John

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

We're just mates, shooting the breeze, aren't we?

:)

Well, this really seems to be an exponentially growing discussion
about something that started out, more or less, as hair splitting.

 Yes, it was hairsplitting. Hardly something I should have started.  But

look at
 all the goodies I got from Matthew. :-D.

I dropped from five chapters in five days to achieving absolutely nothing in
the last 48 hrs, apart from a lot of NG surfing and a bike ride. I have to
stop prevaricating, and posting, so maybe there'll be silence for a while.

I'd hate to be on the D journal review board.   :-(

 LOL.  You are right.  I might be best to stay away from it!  Or be much

more
 accommodating :-D.

It'll be a lot more succinct. You can bank on that. Once I'm past my
deadline, I've several major things on the go - some template libs for D;
two articles and a column in one week; I need to prepare STLSoft 1.7.1; the
CD contents for the book; and something big may be happening with STLSoft in
Feb (though I must do my usual princess and her secret act and demure on the
details for the moment) - so all of my actions on The D Journal will be
short and sweet.

It's been fun though.

John, anytime you want a friendly debate, I'm your man.

Cheers


-- 
Matthew Wilson

Director, Synesis Software (www.synesis.com.au)
STLSoft moderator (http://www.stlsoft.org)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
(www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)

Synesis Software Pty Ltd
P.O.Box 125
Waverley
New South Wales, 2024
Australia

-----------------------------------------------------

John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <btnpua$2qsl$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
We're just mates, shooting the breeze, aren't we?

:)

That we are. :)

It'll be a lot more succinct. You can bank on that. Once I'm past my
deadline, I've several major things on the go - some template libs for D;
two articles and a column in one week; I need to prepare STLSoft 1.7.1; the
CD contents for the book; and something big may be happening with STLSoft in
Feb (though I must do my usual princess and her secret act and demure on the
details for the moment) - so all of my actions on The D Journal will be
short and sweet.

It's been fun though.

You've been productive.  Ever learn to juggle?! <G>

John, anytime you want a friendly debate, I'm your man.

*evil laugh* You're fate is sealed. You're work will never get done now! :)
Lucky for you some medical studies are keeping me at bay (or I thought they
were!)

Later,

John

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

LOL!

"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:btnl6h$2jdv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <btnh4g$2d2n$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
"John Reimer" <John_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 In article <btn8u8$1vlb$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...


 And the other contributors.
 PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize"




 (... a very interesting discussion ignored here)

 Well, this really seems to be an exponentially growing discussion
 about something that started out, more or less, as hair splitting.

 I'd hate to be on the D journal review board.   :-(

Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:

Matthew wrote:
 Monsieurs et madams
 
 We're hoping to get The D Journal happening this year - only two years after
 it was first mooted <G> - and with the talk of the release of D 1.0, and a
 possible comp.lang.d, maybe now is the right time to start thinking about
 it.

Perhaps. But you know how hard is it to put something like that 
together, over and over?

 as long as there are
 sufficient people
 who will volunteer for other duties, e.g. reviewing, document formatting,
 web-site stuff, etc.

I can starting with March.

 I still feel the original format is a good one:
 
     - bi-monthly (i.e. every two months, not twice a month)
     - online format only. It would be nice to have a downloadable PDF
 version also, if anyone has the wherewithall (i.e. a to-PDF converter) to do
 that.

Another cool idea: a Diskmag - a package of datafiles (perhaps HTML) and 
a viewer written in D! For example see www.hugi.de

     - 2-4 articles (2,000 - 4,000 words)
     - Tips section: 2-5 tips, each of ~400 words
     - Notes: 1 paragraph mini-tips, dotted around the issue
     - WFW (Word From Walter)

With such a small amount, you could make it all 64k! ;)

 We need:
     - a group of 5-10 reviewers, preferably with good experience in D and
 extensive experience in at least one other languag
     - people who are good with design and website preparation. Hopefully
 Alix (Pexton) is still keen. Alix was the original webmaster on our
 tentative attempt the first time round. I'm sure we won't waste any amount
 of graphic/web design talent, so please volunteer.

Starting with march, i probably can also help.

  - people submit their proposals in Jan
  - I'll get back on them in during Feb
  - material written in March

The timetable fits me as well.

 Then, depending on how many volunteers we have for the draft reviewing and
 checking, and the document/web preparation, we could hope to get the first
 version out sometime in April. Does this sound good to everyone?

(looking aroung shamefully) Yup!

 The success or otherwise of this will depend on you, so I leave it in your
 hands. :)

:/

-eye

Alix Pexton <Alix thedjournal.com> writes:

Matthew wrote:

Alix (Pexton) is still keen. Alix was the original webmaster on our
tentative attempt the first time round. I'm sure we won't waste any amount
of graphic/web design talent, so please volunteer.
  

Hi all,
    Just so you all know for sure, I do plan to continue my involvement 
with the D journal. As webmaster I plan to make the publication as slick 
as possible (in a tidy HTML way). I'm also prepared to work as a 
reviewer etc...

If the "new" process works as I expected the "old" process to, then it 
will be primerilly up to me to collate all the articles etc for each 
issue, and I'm also prepared to manage the review process.

I'd like to be able to provide more specific requirements for aid, 
beyond Matthew's general call for "graphic/web talent", but I don't yet 
know for sure what hosting facilities we will have at launch. I do want 
to revise the colour scheme (currently it is of no use to the 
colour-blind) and I'd like the graphics to have more impact, though I am 
generally happy with the layout.

As I write this I realise that most of you will have only seen a page 
that says "coming soon" and the original call for papers, the 
unpublished mockup of the site had the same colours, and the ubiquitous 
3 column format, screenshot attached...

Alix...

-- 
            Alix Pexton
Webmaster - http://www.theDjournal.com

            Alix theDjournal.com