www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Discuss here the best article iPad2 contest

reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
The submissions are:

[1] Introduction to std.datetime by Jonathan M Davis
http://is.gd/roLvbu

[2] Concurrency, Parallelism and D by Dave Simcha
http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/

[3] Getting more fiber in your diet by Robert Clipsham
http://octarineparrot.com/article/view/getting-more-fiber-in-your-diet

[4] D Slices by Steve Schveighoffer
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dcollections/wiki/ArrayArticle

[5] Have Your Efficiency, and Flexibility Too by Nick SAbalausky
http://www.semitwist.com/articles/EfficientAndFlexible/SinglePage/


Discuss here, vote in the other thread.
Jun 01 2011
next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
What's the policy for people who submitted articles?  If we don't officially
have
one, I think everyone who submitted an article should vote for any article
except
their own.  If submitters are allowed to vote for themselves, of course they all
will and their votes will effectively cancel out.  I think it's best to give
each
submitter a meaningful vote as to what the best other article is.

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article

 The submissions are:
 [1] Introduction to std.datetime by Jonathan M Davis
 http://is.gd/roLvbu
 [2] Concurrency, Parallelism and D by Dave Simcha
 http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/
 [3] Getting more fiber in your diet by Robert Clipsham
 http://octarineparrot.com/article/view/getting-more-fiber-in-your-diet
 [4] D Slices by Steve Schveighoffer
 http://www.dsource.org/projects/dcollections/wiki/ArrayArticle
 [5] Have Your Efficiency, and Flexibility Too by Nick SAbalausky
 http://www.semitwist.com/articles/EfficientAndFlexible/SinglePage/
 Discuss here, vote in the other thread.
Jun 01 2011
next sibling parent Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
On 02/06/2011 02:16, dsimcha wrote:

 What's the policy for people who submitted articles?  If we don't officially
have
 one, I think everyone who submitted an article should vote for any article
except
 their own.  If submitters are allowed to vote for themselves, of course they
all
 will and their votes will effectively cancel out.  I think it's best to give
each
 submitter a meaningful vote as to what the best other article is.


If we're allowed to vote for another that's not our own, do we have to 
vote? Not that I'd tactically not vote to increase my chances of course :p

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/
Jun 01 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On 2011-06-01 18:16, dsimcha wrote:

 What's the policy for people who submitted articles?  If we don't
 officially have one, I think everyone who submitted an article should vote
 for any article except their own.  If submitters are allowed to vote for
 themselves, of course they all will and their votes will effectively
 cancel out.  I think it's best to give each submitter a meaningful vote as
 to what the best other article is.


I had just assumed that I wouldn't be voting, but it would be best to have 
clarification on this.

- Jonathan M Davis
Jun 01 2011
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 6/1/11 8:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On 2011-06-01 18:16, dsimcha wrote:

 What's the policy for people who submitted articles?  If we don't
 officially have one, I think everyone who submitted an article should vote
 for any article except their own.  If submitters are allowed to vote for
 themselves, of course they all will and their votes will effectively
 cancel out.  I think it's best to give each submitter a meaningful vote as
 to what the best other article is.


 I had just assumed that I wouldn't be voting, but it would be best to have
 clarification on this.


IMHO everyone is allowed one vote including the authors. But Walter decides.

Andrei
Jun 01 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/1/2011 6:16 PM, dsimcha wrote:

 What's the policy for people who submitted articles?  If we don't officially
have
 one, I think everyone who submitted an article should vote for any article
except
 their own.  If submitters are allowed to vote for themselves, of course they
all
 will and their votes will effectively cancel out.  I think it's best to give
each
 submitter a meaningful vote as to what the best other article is.


One vote per person is probably best.
Jun 01 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:16:40 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:


 What's the policy for people who submitted articles?  If we don't  
 officially have
 one, I think everyone who submitted an article should vote for any  
 article except
 their own.  If submitters are allowed to vote for themselves, of course  
 they all
 will and their votes will effectively cancel out.  I think it's best to  
 give each
 submitter a meaningful vote as to what the best other article is.


There were never any rules about authors of articles not being able to  
vote.  Since all of us had posted to the newsgroup prior to the  
announcement, we can all vote.

I was planning on voting for the best article besides my own because I  
think that's the gentlemanly thing to do.  But there are no rules as far  
as whether you can vote for your own article or not.  I.e. if you want to  
vote for your own article, there is no rule against that.

-Steve
Jun 02 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vwf1mfuueav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:16:40 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:


 What's the policy for people who submitted articles?  If we don't 
 officially have
 one, I think everyone who submitted an article should vote for any 
 article except
 their own.  If submitters are allowed to vote for themselves, of course 
 they all
 will and their votes will effectively cancel out.  I think it's best to 
 give each
 submitter a meaningful vote as to what the best other article is.


 There were never any rules about authors of articles not being able to 
 vote.  Since all of us had posted to the newsgroup prior to the 
 announcement, we can all vote.

 I was planning on voting for the best article besides my own because I 
 think that's the gentlemanly thing to do.  But there are no rules as far 
 as whether you can vote for your own article or not.  I.e. if you want to 
 vote for your own article, there is no rule against that.

 -Steve


If other authors vote for themselves, then I'd want to vote for myself as 
well. However, I much prefer Steve's plan of voting for someone other than 
himself. I agree it's "the gentlemanly thing to do". Besides, if most of us 
do vote for ourselves, then they'll pretty much just cancel out anyway.

So I have a proposal: Even if we are technically allowed to vote for 
ourselves, I propose that we all agree not to. With Steve and I in favor of 
this, that makes it 2 out of the 5 so far. So how about it, Jonathan, Dave 
and Robert?
Jun 02 2011
next sibling parent Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
On 02/06/2011 11:57, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 If other authors vote for themselves, then I'd want to vote for myself as
 well. However, I much prefer Steve's plan of voting for someone other than
 himself. I agree it's "the gentlemanly thing to do". Besides, if most of us
 do vote for ourselves, then they'll pretty much just cancel out anyway.

 So I have a proposal: Even if we are technically allowed to vote for
 ourselves, I propose that we all agree not to. With Steve and I in favor of
 this, that makes it 2 out of the 5 so far. So how about it, Jonathan, Dave
 and Robert?


Sounds like a plan.

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/
Jun 02 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On 2011-06-02 03:57, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.vwf1mfuueav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 

 On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:16:40 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

 What's the policy for people who submitted articles?  If we don't
 officially have
 one, I think everyone who submitted an article should vote for any
 article except
 their own.  If submitters are allowed to vote for themselves, of course
 they all
 will and their votes will effectively cancel out.  I think it's best to
 give each
 submitter a meaningful vote as to what the best other article is.


 
 There were never any rules about authors of articles not being able to
 vote.  Since all of us had posted to the newsgroup prior to the
 announcement, we can all vote.
 
 I was planning on voting for the best article besides my own because I
 think that's the gentlemanly thing to do.  But there are no rules as far
 as whether you can vote for your own article or not.  I.e. if you want to
 vote for your own article, there is no rule against that.
 
 -Steve


 
 If other authors vote for themselves, then I'd want to vote for myself as
 well. However, I much prefer Steve's plan of voting for someone other than
 himself. I agree it's "the gentlemanly thing to do". Besides, if most of us
 do vote for ourselves, then they'll pretty much just cancel out anyway.
 
 So I have a proposal: Even if we are technically allowed to vote for
 ourselves, I propose that we all agree not to. With Steve and I in favor of
 this, that makes it 2 out of the 5 so far. So how about it, Jonathan, Dave
 and Robert?


Fine with me.

- Jonathan M Davis
Jun 02 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:16:40 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:


 If submitters are allowed to vote for themselves, of course
 they all
 will and their votes will effectively cancel out.  I think it's best to
 give each
 submitter a meaningful vote as to what the best other article is.


...

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 06:57:48 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 So I have a proposal: Even if we are technically allowed to vote for
 ourselves, I propose that we all agree not to. With Steve and I in favor  
 of
 this, that makes it 2 out of the 5 so far. So how about it, Jonathan,  
 Dave
 and Robert?


Given the above original post by David (which outlines a preference for  
the same thing you stated), I think he's on board with this.  Which means  
we are all in agreement.

-Steve
Jun 02 2011
next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
Make it a tie so you all have to do round 2 and write another set of
articles. ^^
Jun 02 2011
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vwhbd5lieav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:16:40 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:


 If submitters are allowed to vote for themselves, of course
 they all
 will and their votes will effectively cancel out.  I think it's best to
 give each
 submitter a meaningful vote as to what the best other article is.


 ...

 On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 06:57:48 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 So I have a proposal: Even if we are technically allowed to vote for
 ourselves, I propose that we all agree not to. With Steve and I in favor 
 of
 this, that makes it 2 out of the 5 so far. So how about it, Jonathan, 
 Dave
 and Robert?


 Given the above original post by David (which outlines a preference for 
 the same thing you stated), I think he's on board with this.  Which means 
 we are all in agreement.


Good point. So great, then :)

Now watch us all end up voting for completely different people and cancel 
our votes out anyway ;)
Jun 02 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent SK <sk metrokings.com> writes:
My favorite was Schveighoffer's (had to look carefully to spell that) on D
slices.   I liked the balance of code and text, low abuse of 'be' verbs and
pronouns -- and I learned!
Jun 02 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
I voted for David's article.  It was a very close call for me between  
Robert and David.  Both articles were well written and covered very  
similar topics, both of which I learned some new things from.

Everyone did a great job.  This was a tough one to decide.  Nick, your  
article was too long for me, but I *loved* the dialog.  It reminded me  
tremendously of the very successful (and one of my favorite) series Head  
First programming books (mostly centered on Java), where they do things  
like interviews of variable types.

TBH, I really expected more voter turnout.  Maybe there will be a  
last-minute rush.  Good luck to everyone!

-Steve
Jun 06 2011
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vwn0r9ymeav7ka localhost.localdomain...

I voted for David's article.  It was a very close call for me between 
Robert and David.  Both articles were well written and covered very 
similar topics, both of which I learned some new things from.


I'm still trying to narrow it down, they're all good!


 Everyone did a great job.  This was a tough one to decide.  Nick, your 
 article was too long for me,


Yea, understandable. When I realized how long it ended up, I figured that 
could work either for or against me ;)


 but I *loved* the dialog.  It reminded me  tremendously of the very 
 successful (and one of my favorite) series Head  First programming books 
 (mostly centered on Java), where they do things  like interviews of 
 variable types.


Thanks. I haven't read any of the "Head First" series. But a long time ago I 
read a bunch of C/C++ books, and there was one in particular that really 
stuck out in my mind, that I never forgot. I don't remember the name of it, 
but it involved a robotic dog (pictured on the cover) and featured the 
"Profound Object Oriented Programming" method, ie "POOP". Probably 90% of 
the C/C++ books I've read I have no memory of whatsoever, but that one 
always stuck with me and has definitely influenced my style. Whether that's 
for the better or the worse, I can't really say ;)


 TBH, I really expected more voter turnout.  Maybe there will be a 
 last-minute rush.


I'd been thinking the same thing, too. Although it looks like the rush may 
have just started...
Jun 06 2011
prev sibling parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 06.06.2011 19:41, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 
 Everyone did a great job.  This was a tough one to decide.  


Yeah, all articles are really interesting and well written.


 Nick, your  article was too long for me, but I *loved* the dialog.  


It's pretty long, but written in style that kept me reading on.

Cheers,
- Daniel
Jun 06 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:47:16 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 [5] Have Your Efficiency, and Flexibility Too by Nick SAbalausky
 http://www.semitwist.com/articles/EfficientAndFlexible/SinglePage/


Overall, I thought it thorough, and enjoyable read, if a little too cute  
for its own good in a couple of places. Just a couple of comments:

* Here's a shorter, cleaner alternative to isIGizmo from  
ex5_meta_deadDuck1.d:

template isIGizmo(T)
{
     immutable bool isIGizmo = is(T : Gizmo!(T.numPorts, T.isSpinnable));
}

* static asserts in their current incarnation (well, as of 2.052, I  
haven't double checked 2.053) are broken and should be verboten. This is  
because they halt compilation, instead of generating an _error statement,  
whenever they are evaluated. So when evaluated in traits, template  
constraints, etc. anything with a static assert doesn't compose. As an  
alternative, putting a string by itself on a line produces just as good an  
error message and composes with the rest of D. (It might also be a cross  
language technique.) See  
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5233 for an example.

* I think there's a minor error in ex5_meta_deadDuck2.d:
is`~interfaceName~`!(`~thisType~`), =>  
is(`~interfaceName~`!(`~thisType~`)),

Also, inside a template you can use the template name to refer to itself.  
So you could change "string thisType" to "T" and then use T.stringof and  
mixin(declareInterface("IGizmo", Gizmo)); instead.
Jun 07 2011
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> wrote in message 
news:op.vwppwpaa26stm6 sandford.myhome.westell.com...

 On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:47:16 -0400, Walter Bright 
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 [5] Have Your Efficiency, and Flexibility Too by Nick SAbalausky
 http://www.semitwist.com/articles/EfficientAndFlexible/SinglePage/



 * I think there's a minor error in ex5_meta_deadDuck2.d:
 is`~interfaceName~`!(`~thisType~`), => 
 is(`~interfaceName~`!(`~thisType~`)),


No, the first one is corrent. The intent is to use the "isIGizmo" template, 
not "is(T)".
Jun 07 2011
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
This is a very close contest - I could hardly vote without feeling 
guilty about all other submissions. The submissions are in moderate 
number but excellent quality.

After the voting we should publicize the articles and the voting results 
to reddit.


Andrei
Jun 07 2011
parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
Andrei,

On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 16:08 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 This is a very close contest - I could hardly vote without feeling=20
 guilty about all other submissions. The submissions are in moderate=20
 number but excellent quality.
=20
 After the voting we should publicize the articles and the voting results=


=20

 to reddit.


Can I suggest that Walter and/or yourself see if the articles can be
published as a special issue of CVu for the ACCU.  Clearly author
permissions would be needed, but CVu does not ask for copyright
transfer, or any constraint on what else the author can do with the
article, they just ask for a licence to publish.

I have taken the liberty of CC'ing Steve Love the current editor of CVu
and Paul Grenyer who has int he past done a Guest editor role.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jun 07 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/7/2011 11:26 PM, Russel Winder wrote:

 Can I suggest that Walter and/or yourself see if the articles can be
 published as a special issue of CVu for the ACCU.  Clearly author
 permissions would be needed, but CVu does not ask for copyright
 transfer, or any constraint on what else the author can do with the
 article, they just ask for a licence to publish.

 I have taken the liberty of CC'ing Steve Love the current editor of CVu
 and Paul Grenyer who has int he past done a Guest editor role.



I'm all for it. Let's do it!
Jun 08 2011
parent Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 20:30 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
[ .. . ]

 Here is all the material:


What needs to go with this is a statement from each author that they are
happy for ACCU to publish the articles in the journals, and for there to
be a short introduction from yourself putting the articles in context.
Why they exist at all.  Why the topics matter. etc. etc.  Basically a
guest editorial about the articles.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jun 09 2011