www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition

reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! We're 
still ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on this for 
weeks and, now that we have a venue, I just can't keep quiet 
about it any longer.

I've updated the DConf site and published a blog post, but I ask 
that you please don't share this to reddit just yet. I want to 
wait until after Christmas to share it there. We're still ironing 
out some details (deadlines, prices, hotels) and I'll update the 
DConf site in the coming days with info as I get it.

Happy Holidays!

http://dconf.org/2019/index.html

https://dlang.org/blog/2018/12/22/dconf-2019-shepherds-pie-edition/
Dec 22 2018
next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
Brilliant, DConf comes to the UK, I can get to it=E2=80=A6

except=E2=80=A6

it's on at the exact same time as DevoxxUK 2019 which is at the
Business Design Centre. :-(

--=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
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk
Dec 22 2018
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/22/2018 5:33 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 it's on at the exact same time as DevoxxUK 2019 which is at the
 Business Design Centre. :-(



Please inform DevoxxUK they need to shift their schedule.
Dec 22 2018
prev sibling parent Bienlein <ffm2002 web.de> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 13:33:29 UTC, Russel Winder 
wrote:

 Brilliant, DConf comes to the UK, I can get to it…

 except…

 it's on at the exact same time as DevoxxUK 2019 which is at the 
 Business Design Centre. :-(


Programming languages are unimportant anyway.
Jan 14 2019
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! 
 We're still ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on 
 this for weeks and, now that we have a venue, I just can't keep 
 quiet about it any longer.

 I've updated the DConf site and published a blog post, but I 
 ask that you please don't share this to reddit just yet. I want 
 to wait until after Christmas to share it there. We're still 
 ironing out some details (deadlines, prices, hotels) and I'll 
 update the DConf site in the coming days with info as I get it.

 Happy Holidays!

 http://dconf.org/2019/index.html

 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/12/22/dconf-2019-shepherds-pie-edition/


Given that this conference format is dying off, is there any 
explanation for why the D team wants to continue this antiquated 
ritual?

https://marco.org/2018/01/17/end-of-conference-era
http://subfurther.com/blog/2018/01/15/the-final-conf-down/
https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ogrdeyojqzosvjnthpsi forum.dlang.org

It costs $3k to hire a pull request manager, something D 
desperately needed, yet here you are having the average 
conference participant spend that mostly on flights and hotels to 
go to London, only to stare silently at presentations most of the 
time, while surrounded by a room full of people. What are the 
possible priorities that this can be considered a good idea?

The egregious waste of time and resources of this DConf format 
strongly signals that D is not a serious effort to build a used 
language, but a hobby project by two tech retirees, W&A, who just 
want to prototype some different ideas, show it off to a bunch of 
fellow hobbyists, and then have some beers and go sight-seeing.

If this is the core team's goal, please just stop stating 
otherwise and broadcast this on the front page of the website, as 
you're essentially doing by the way this blog post was written. 
Giant companies like google or Microsoft can afford these 
antiquated, giant wastes of time known as conferences and even 
they are cutting back. The fact that the D team is moving forward 
with this given how tech is moving is a horrible sign, suggesting 
it is completely out of touch and unable to prioritize well.
Dec 22 2018
next sibling parent reply Atila Neves <atila.neves gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 13:46:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:



 The egregious waste of time and resources of this DConf format 
 strongly signals that D is not a serious effort to build a used 
 language,


It's the same signal being emitted by all of these "failures" as 
well:

Go: https://twitter.com/dgryski/status/1034939523736600576
Rust: https://rustconf.com/
Clojure: https://clojure.org/community/events
Haskell: https://wiki.haskell.org/Conferences
C++: https://cppcon.org/ https://cpponsea.uk/ http://cppnow.org/ 
https://meetingcpp.com/

etc.

To me it's obvious from that short list that took me less than 
5min to come up with that conferences aren't a dying format. I 
gave up on C++ conferences after the 4th link, there are just too 
many.

If you don't like conferences you don't have to go. I for one am 
excited about being in London in May. Please don't sour it for 
other who think/feel like I do.
Dec 22 2018
next sibling parent reply Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 15:11:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 14:26:29 UTC, Atila Neves 
 wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 13:46:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:



 The egregious waste of time and resources of this DConf 
 format strongly signals that D is not a serious effort to 
 build a used language,


 It's the same signal being emitted by all of these "failures" 
 as well:

 Go: https://twitter.com/dgryski/status/1034939523736600576
 Rust: https://rustconf.com/
 Clojure: https://clojure.org/community/events
 Haskell: https://wiki.haskell.org/Conferences
 C++: https://cppcon.org/ https://cpponsea.uk/ 
 http://cppnow.org/ https://meetingcpp.com/

 etc.

 To me it's obvious from that short list that took me less than 
 5min to come up with that conferences aren't a dying format. I 
 gave up on C++ conferences after the 4th link, there are just 
 too many.


 The fact that a short list of conferences still exists at all 
 somehow makes it "obvious" to you that they're not dying? Did 
 you even look at my second link that actually tallies some 
 numbers for a particular tech market?

 It is true that a few conferences are still being done, even my 
 second link above never said they're _all_ gone. But simply 
 saying some are still following this outdated ritual is not an 
 argument for continuing it, nor does it contradict anything I 
 said about the number of conferences going down.


 If you don't like conferences you don't have to go.


 This has nothing do me: I've never been to DConf or most any 
 other tech conference and likely never will. This is about 
 whether the D team should be wasting time with this dying 
 format.


 I for one am excited about being in London in May. Please 
 don't sour it for other who think/feel like I do.


 Heh, so that's your two big arguments for why the conference 
 format should continue: other languages are doing it and you 
 want to visit London in May? You are exemplifying the mindset 
 that I'm pointing out with these flimsy arguments, everything 
 that is wrong with D and DConf.


We talked a great deal about this in your thread 
(https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ogrdeyojqzosvjnthpsi forum.dlang.org). I
believe the main takeaway from that discussion was that many of us disagree
with your opinion to at least some degree.

I know that you are very convinced about your idea of how we 
should do DConf being superior and that is OK. Maybe you are just 
ahead of time in this case, I don't know. But it is also  a fact 
that many people stated that they actually enjoy the current 
DConf format very much and believe it is not a waste of time and 
money at all. So to me, it is no surprise at all that it was 
decided to to stick with the current format.

Also I don't think this is the right place for this discussion. 
If you feel that we indeed need to rediscuss this issue, I think 
it should be done in a separate thread.
Dec 22 2018
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:35:27 UTC, Johannes Loher 
wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 15:11:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 14:26:29 UTC, Atila Neves 
 wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 13:46:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:



 The egregious waste of time and resources of this DConf 
 format strongly signals that D is not a serious effort to 
 build a used language,


 It's the same signal being emitted by all of these "failures" 
 as well:

 Go: https://twitter.com/dgryski/status/1034939523736600576
 Rust: https://rustconf.com/
 Clojure: https://clojure.org/community/events
 Haskell: https://wiki.haskell.org/Conferences
 C++: https://cppcon.org/ https://cpponsea.uk/ 
 http://cppnow.org/ https://meetingcpp.com/

 etc.

 To me it's obvious from that short list that took me less 
 than 5min to come up with that conferences aren't a dying 
 format. I gave up on C++ conferences after the 4th link, 
 there are just too many.


 The fact that a short list of conferences still exists at all 
 somehow makes it "obvious" to you that they're not dying? Did 
 you even look at my second link that actually tallies some 
 numbers for a particular tech market?

 It is true that a few conferences are still being done, even 
 my second link above never said they're _all_ gone. But simply 
 saying some are still following this outdated ritual is not an 
 argument for continuing it, nor does it contradict anything I 
 said about the number of conferences going down.


 If you don't like conferences you don't have to go.


 This has nothing do me: I've never been to DConf or most any 
 other tech conference and likely never will. This is about 
 whether the D team should be wasting time with this dying 
 format.


 I for one am excited about being in London in May. Please 
 don't sour it for other who think/feel like I do.


 Heh, so that's your two big arguments for why the conference 
 format should continue: other languages are doing it and you 
 want to visit London in May? You are exemplifying the mindset 
 that I'm pointing out with these flimsy arguments, everything 
 that is wrong with D and DConf.


 We talked a great deal about this in your thread 
 (https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ogrdeyojqzosvjnthpsi forum.dlang.org). I
believe the main takeaway from that discussion was that many of us disagree
with your opinion to at least some degree.


As I recall, you largely agreed with me:

"I totally agree with you on your first point, i.e. making DConf 
more interactive."

"I disagree with your second point, i.e. decentralising DConf... 
On the other hand, I have to admit that decentralising the event 
would open it up for a much bigger audience, which definitely is 
a good idea."
https://forum.dlang.org/post/omsxuayxkaqbxeoberzb forum.dlang.org


 I know that you are very convinced about your idea of how we 
 should do DConf being superior and that is OK. Maybe you are 
 just ahead of time in this case, I don't know. But it is also  
 a fact that many people stated that they actually enjoy the 
 current DConf format very much and believe it is not a waste of 
 time and money at all. So to me, it is no surprise at all that 
 it was decided to to stick with the current format.


I really don't care how many people agree or disagree. All I care 
about is the reasoning presented. As I see it, I gave lots of 
good reasons, and like Atila here, they gave none: only "I 
enjoyed myself." That's not a worthwhile reason, if the goal is 
to further the D language and community.


 Also I don't think this is the right place for this discussion. 
 If you feel that we indeed need to rediscuss this issue, I 
 think it should be done in a separate thread.


I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm 
asking the D team who're making this decision why it's being 
made, despite all the reasoning in that thread, and reiterating 
that it's a bad move. I suspect they're not thinking this 
through, but they can speak for themselves.
Dec 22 2018
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:57:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:


 I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm 
 asking the D team who're making this decision why it's being 
 made, despite all the reasoning in that thread, and reiterating 
 that it's a bad move. I suspect they're not thinking this 
 through, but they can speak for themselves.


The decision was made because your reasoning failed to convince 
anyone involved in the planning that maintaining the current 
format of DConf is a mistake. Nor do they agree with you that 
it's a bad move. We like the current format and see no need to 
change it at this time.

If you would like to carry on another debate about this, please 
open another thread in thhe General forum. This one isn't the 
place for it. Thanks!
Dec 22 2018
next sibling parent Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 17:13:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 We like the current format and see no need to change it at this 
 time.


That's all it really comes down to. Y'all like it.

But the time and money COULD be put to far better use. Consider 
this: keep the same schedule, but the talks change from being 50 
minutes of awkward power point to being:

15 minutes - the talk part. Speaker introduces the topic and 
proposes something for everyone to work on.

20 minutes - the conference attendees split into a few work-sized 
groups and do something about the proposed topic. Maybe 
mini-hackathon. Maybe just discuss it. Maybe toy around with the 
stuff. The speaker wanders around groups to help guide them as 
needed and see what they are talking about.

15 minutes - The speaker goes up front again to share what was 
learned from the groups. Open discussion is encouraged. If 
appropriate, an action plan is decided upon. It concludes with a 
feeling of accomplishment.


All topics and talk handouts and powerpoints MUST be made public 
ahead of time for people who want to study it and have some 
thoughts prepared going into it.



For example, let's look at last year's first few talks. 1, memory 
safety. Walter introduces the problem and the new features. The 
groups spend the work session actually trying the feature. Try it 
on your code. Try to break it. Talk about how you hate it in your 
little group, whatever, just get hands-on in-person.

Then, Walter could come back and demonstrate the stuff (basically 
the same as the second half of his old slides) for everyone - 
with the group's comments added. When we get to the last slide 
with "more work to do", the audience knows this - they might have 
even filed some bugs from their experience already! Hackathon 
work lined up.

BetterC talk? Basically ditto.


So what's the advantage here over just lecturing?

* The audience is more engaged. Many people learn more by doing 
than by just watching.

* The work groups can mingle a bit and maybe get to know each 
other and learn from each other. (I'd randomize these a little.)

* Everyone trying it together means they may be able to write bug 
reports, get more insight into DIPs, be prepared to review PRs 
since they have at least SOME experience.

* People's questions will be more refined at the end of the talk.



Pretty small tweak to the current format - and not all talks need 
to be the same, just a new option here - and I think it would 
make a lot more out of the in-person time.
Dec 22 2018
prev sibling parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:
On 12/22/18 12:22 PM, Joakim wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 17:13:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:57:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:


 I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm asking 
 the D team who're making this decision why it's being made, despite 
 all the reasoning in that thread, and reiterating that it's a bad 
 move. I suspect they're not thinking this through, but they can speak 
 for themselves.


 The decision was made because your reasoning failed to convince anyone 
 involved in the planning that maintaining the current format of DConf 
 is a mistake. Nor do they agree with you that it's a bad move. We like 
 the current format and see no need to change it at this time.


 
 I see, so you admit no reasoning was involved on your part? Because you 
 present none, either there or here.


Huh? It's their decision, not yours. Even if the decision has no reason 
at all, it's still theirs. What is the problem? Start your own D 
"conference competitor" if you think you can do better.


 

 If you would like to carry on another debate about this, please open 
 another thread in thhe General forum. This one isn't the place for it. 
 Thanks!


 
 As I just noted, I don't care to "debate" it with people who make no 
 arguments. Instead, I'm asking you or whoever made this horrible 
 decision why it's being made.


Nobody cares to debate something that has already been scheduled and 
planned, the time to bring up concerns was earlier, when you brought it 
up before. But that failed to convince, now it's decided, time to move on.


 If it's such a great idea, that should be an easy case to make, compared 
 to the alternatives given. Yet all I get is a bunch of stone-walling, 
 suggesting no reasoning was actually involved, just blindly aping others 
 and the past.


It is easy, for those who have attended conferences and like them -- 
they work well. All past dconfs are shining examples. Just drop it and 
move on to something else. You lost the battle for this one, it's no 
longer up for discussion.

-Steve
Dec 23 2018
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:57:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:35:27 UTC, Johannes Loher 
 wrote:

 Also I don't think this is the right place for this 
 discussion. If you feel that we indeed need to rediscuss this 
 issue, I think it should be done in a separate thread.


 I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm 
 asking the D team [...]


Then why post in the announce thread? If you don’t feel your 
previous thread got your message through, you know how to reach 
the foundation.

I don’t understand how you can argue against technical 
conferences so much if you never attended one, much less DConf. I 
know the odds are slim, but I hope to meet you there someday.

Bastiaan.
Dec 22 2018
parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 17:36:08 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo 
wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:57:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:35:27 UTC, Johannes Loher 
 wrote:

 Also I don't think this is the right place for this 
 discussion. If you feel that we indeed need to rediscuss this 
 issue, I think it should be done in a separate thread.


 I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm 
 asking the D team [...]


 Then why post in the announce thread? If you don’t feel your 
 previous thread got your message through, you know how to reach 
 the foundation.


Why wouldn't I post in here? There's currently a 84-post thread 
in this Announce forum discussing Atila's blog post about what D 
got wrong.

Similarly, this is the thread where the topic is the next DConf. 
I almost never send private emails over community matters, which 
should be discussed publicly.


 I don’t understand how you can argue against technical 
 conferences so much if you never attended one, much less DConf.


I didn't say I never attended one, I probably sat through 
something back in my college days. I watch some conf videos now 
and then, but like most techies these days, don't find any value 
in going.


 I know the odds are slim, but I hope to meet you there someday.


I'd like to meet you too, but I think if it happens, it won't 
ever be at an outdated format like the current DConf. :P
Dec 22 2018
prev sibling parent Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:57:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 As I recall, you largely agreed with me:


That is true, and I still do regarding many points (though not 
all). But this is not the point I wanted to make. I don't 
consider my opinion that important. I simply wanted to point out 
why the D team probably decided against your suggestion.


 I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm 
 asking the D team who're making this decision why it's being 
 made, despite all the reasoning in that thread, and reiterating 
 that it's a bad move. I suspect they're not thinking this 
 through, but they can speak for themselves.


I do understand your wish for them to explain the reasons for 
their decision. And in my opinion the reasoning so far has indeed 
been a bit poor ("your arguments were not convincing"). Maybe The 
D team can give some more details about why they value the 
traditional conference format more than your suggestion.

By the way, if you are still interested in implementing your 
suggested conference format (I'm getting the feeling that you are 
getting a bit frustrated :(), it might be more promising to not 
replace DConf with it, but instead make it an additional event 
(maybe in autumn). If you are interested in discussing more ideas 
about this, I'd gladly participate.
Dec 22 2018
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/22/2018 6:26 AM, Atila Neves wrote:

 If you don't like conferences you don't have to go. I for one am excited about 
 being in London in May. Please don't sour it for other who think/feel like I
do.


That's right. And hefting a pint with Atila is guaranteed to be a highlight of 
the conference! I recommend it for those who haven't had the pleasure.

That said, I think we've probably tried to cram too many presentations into the 
schedule. We should probably have fewer and put gaps between them for people to 
digest and talk about them.

Also, I try to make my presentations less "I lecture and you listen silently"
to 
be much more interactive and engaging with you guys. I suggest others planning
a 
presentation to also think along those lines.

Some other advantages of DConf off the top of my head, in no particular order:

1. putting a face and name to the person greatly helps working with people 
remotely the rest of the year

2. it's amazing how intractable, obstinate online positions just melt away when 
discussed in person over a beer

3. it's fun to see what other people are doing, as it's easy to miss what's 
important by just monitoring the n.g.

4. I regard all you folks as my friends, and it's fun to be with y'all

5. many, many collaborations have spawned from meeting like minded individuals 
at DConf

6. employers come to DConf looking for D developers, and many D developers have 
gotten jobs from them. If that isn't a win-win, I don't know what is!
Dec 22 2018
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 22:13:44 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:

 On 12/22/2018 6:26 AM, Atila Neves wrote:

 If you don't like conferences you don't have to go. I for one 
 am excited about being in London in May. Please don't sour it 
 for other who think/feel like I do.


 That's right. And hefting a pint with Atila is guaranteed to be 
 a highlight of the conference! I recommend it for those who 
 haven't had the pleasure.


I'm sure he's fun to be around, the question is whether it's 
worth the cost of flying to London.


 That said, I think we've probably tried to cram too many 
 presentations into the schedule. We should probably have fewer 
 and put gaps between them for people to digest and talk about 
 them.


The question is if it's worth doing in-person presentations at 
all.


 Also, I try to make my presentations less "I lecture and you 
 listen silently" to be much more interactive and engaging with 
 you guys. I suggest others planning a presentation to also 
 think along those lines.


Honestly, yours are routinely the worst presentations at DConf. 
Your strength as a presenter is when you dig deeply into a bunch 
of technical detail or present some new technical paradigm, 
similar to Andrei. Yet, your DConf keynotes usually go the exact 
opposite route and go very lightly over not very much at all.

Reading through your listed benefits of DConf below tells me you 
didn't read anything I wrote in the linked forum thread above 
from months ago, as nowhere did I say not to get people together 
in person at all, which is where most of your benefits come from.

Rather, I made three primary suggestions for how to get people 
together instead:

1) Ditch in-person presentations for pre-recorded talks that 
people watch on their own time. Getting everybody in the same 
room in London to silently watch talks together is a horrible 
waste, that only made sense before we all had high-speed 
internet-connected TVs and smartphones with good cameras. Do a 
four-day hackathon instead, ie mostly collaboration, not passive 
viewing.

2) Rather than doing a central DConf that most cannot justify 
attending, do several locations, eg in the cities the core team 
already lives in, like Boston, Seattle, San Jose, Hong Kong, etc. 
This makes it cost-effective for many more people to attend, and 
since you'll have ditched the in-person tech talks, spend the 
time introducing the many more attendees to the language or have 
those who already know it work on the language/libraries, ie 
something like the current DConf hackathon.

3) Get the core team together as a separate event, either as an 
offline retreat or online video conference or both. I know you 
guys need to meet once in awhile, but it makes no sense to spend 
most of that in-person time at DConf staring at talks that could 
be viewed online later.


 Some other advantages of DConf off the top of my head, in no 
 particular order:

 1. putting a face and name to the person greatly helps working 
 with people remotely the rest of the year


Maybe, but only 2) above mitigates it somewhat, and is it worth 
the cost?


 2. it's amazing how intractable, obstinate online positions 
 just melt away when discussed in person over a beer


1) and 3) enable that more, 2) sacrifices that for greater 
outreach.


 3. it's fun to see what other people are doing, as it's easy to 
 miss what's important by just monitoring the n.g.


1) and 3) enable that more, 2) sacrifices it somewhat.


 4. I regard all you folks as my friends, and it's fun to be 
 with y'all


Is that more important than outreach and getting things done?


 5. many, many collaborations have spawned from meeting like 
 minded individuals at DConf


They still would with the suggestions above, just differently.


 6. employers come to DConf looking for D developers, and many D 
 developers have gotten jobs from them. If that isn't a win-win, 
 I don't know what is!


While I find it questionable to say that they couldn't easily 
find and recruit those people online, given that D is primarly an 
online project where most everything and everyone is easily 
available online, I see no reason why any of the changes above 
would stop that.

It seems clear to me that you, at the very least, have not 
engaged with the links and ideas I've been providing about why 
the current DConf format is broken.

My fundamental point is that the current DConf conference format 
is an outdated relic, that made sense decades ago when getting 
everybody together in a room in Berlin was a fantastic way to get 
everybody connected. With the ready availability of high-speed 
internet and video displays to everybody who can afford to pay 
the registration fee and go to London, that hoary conference 
format needs to be rethought for the internet age.

I have no problem with anybody disagreeing with my suggestions or 
the reasoning behind them, but I find it flabbergasting for 
anyone to suggest, as Mike has above, that the old conference 
format still makes sense, especially given the documented 
evidence of it declining.

D cannot afford to be technically innovative yet lag behind on 
everything else, as it once was when you used no version control 
or issue tracker for the early years of D. Some thought needs to 
be put into these issues I'm pointing out with the current 
conference format, yet I don't see it happening.

On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 22:15:19 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:

 On 12/22/2018 7:11 AM, Joakim wrote:

 I've never been to DConf


 I suggest actually attending and seeing for yourself.


I've considered it several times, but could never justify the 
cost of flying to Berlin or wherever. I suspect there's many in 
my boat, hence 2) above.
Dec 22 2018
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/22/2018 10:20 PM, Joakim wrote:

 Honestly, yours are routinely the worst presentations at DConf. Your strength
as 
 a presenter is when you dig deeply into a bunch of technical detail or present 
 some new technical paradigm, similar to Andrei. Yet, your DConf keynotes
usually 
 go the exact opposite route and go very lightly over not very much at all.


Eh, I went pretty far into the DIP 1000 material.



 1) Ditch in-person presentations for pre-recorded talks that people watch on 
 their own time. Getting everybody in the same room in London to silently watch 
 talks together is a horrible waste, that only made sense before we all had 
 high-speed internet-connected TVs and smartphones with good cameras. Do a 
 four-day hackathon instead, ie mostly collaboration, not passive viewing.


It's very different listening to a presentation live rather than pre-recorded. 
There are the before and after interactions they inspire.



 2) Rather than doing a central DConf that most cannot justify attending, do 
 several locations, eg in the cities the core team already lives in, like
Boston, 
 Seattle, San Jose, Hong Kong, etc. This makes it cost-effective for many more 
 people to attend, and since you'll have ditched the in-person tech talks,
spend 
 the time introducing the many more attendees to the language or have those who 
 already know it work on the language/libraries, ie something like the current 
 DConf hackathon.


London is the most cost-effective destination for most D team members. For 
distributed meetings, there have been several D meetups that do what you 
suggest. While fun and valuable, they're not a replacement for DConf.



 3) Get the core team together as a separate event, either as an offline
retreat 
 or online video conference or both. I know you guys need to meet once in
awhile, 
 but it makes no sense to spend most of that in-person time at DConf staring at 
 talks that could be viewed online later.


If you ever came to one, you might see it differently.



 While I find it questionable to say that they couldn't easily find and recruit 
 those people online, given that D is primarly an online project where most 
 everything and everyone is easily available online, I see no reason why any of 
 the changes above would stop that.


There's a very clear connection between DConf and successful collaborations
with 
industry and D developers. Why mess with success?



 It seems clear to me that you, at the very least, have not engaged with the 
 links and ideas I've been providing about why the current DConf format is
broken.


Your opinions would have more weight if (1) you've ever attended a DConf and
(2) 
can point to successful instantiations of your theories.



 My fundamental point is that the current DConf conference format is an
outdated 
 relic, that made sense decades ago when getting everybody together in a room
in 
 Berlin was a fantastic way to get everybody connected. With the ready 
 availability of high-speed internet and video displays to everybody who can 
 afford to pay the registration fee and go to London, that hoary conference 
 format needs to be rethought for the internet age.
 
 I have no problem with anybody disagreeing with my suggestions or the
reasoning 
 behind them, but I find it flabbergasting for anyone to suggest, as Mike has 
 above, that the old conference format still makes sense, especially given the 
 documented evidence of it declining.


People *like* conferences. You can buy a Led Zeppelin CD or spend $$$$ to see 
them live and enjoy it with the crowd. Maybe you'll go backstage and meet & 
greet. Which would you rather do?

BTW, another point for the presentations is that we cover the air fare and
hotel 
expenses for the presenters. Quite a lot of people have been able to attend 
because of this. It's our way of giving a little bit back to strong
contributors.
Dec 23 2018
next sibling parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 10:07:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/22/2018 10:20 PM, Joakim wrote:

 Honestly, yours are routinely the worst presentations at 
 DConf. Your strength as a presenter is when you dig deeply 
 into a bunch of technical detail or present some new technical 
 paradigm, similar to Andrei. Yet, your DConf keynotes usually 
 go the exact opposite route and go very lightly over not very 
 much at all.


 Eh, I went pretty far into the DIP 1000 material.


That one had more technical examples, but I didn't think it was 
very well-motivated and could probably have had more detail.

My feeling is that you save your best stuff for your NWCPP talks 
and present the baby versions at DConf.


 1) Ditch in-person presentations for pre-recorded talks that 
 people watch on their own time. Getting everybody in the same 
 room in London to silently watch talks together is a horrible 
 waste, that only made sense before we all had high-speed 
 internet-connected TVs and smartphones with good cameras. Do a 
 four-day hackathon instead, ie mostly collaboration, not 
 passive viewing.


 It's very different listening to a presentation live rather 
 than pre-recorded. There are the before and after interactions 
 they inspire.


I'm not sure how a talk is supposed to inspire anything 
substantive _before_ you've heard it, and pre-recorded talks 
watched at home would fill the same purpose after.

Perhaps this is a generation gap, as I see that you and Russel 
are a couple decades older than me, so let me give my 
perspective. I've probably watched a week or two of recorded tech 
talks online over the last year, and maybe a couple hours in 
person. Invariably, I find myself wishing for a skip-ahead button 
on those in-person talks, like I have for the online videos. ;)

I suspect there are many more like me these days than you two.


 2) Rather than doing a central DConf that most cannot justify 
 attending, do several locations, eg in the cities the core 
 team already lives in, like Boston, Seattle, San Jose, Hong 
 Kong, etc. This makes it cost-effective for many more people 
 to attend, and since you'll have ditched the in-person tech 
 talks, spend the time introducing the many more attendees to 
 the language or have those who already know it work on the 
 language/libraries, ie something like the current DConf 
 hackathon.


 London is the most cost-effective destination for most D team 
 members. For distributed meetings, there have been several D 
 meetups that do what you suggest. While fun and valuable, 
 they're not a replacement for DConf.


I have never heard of a meetup doing what I suggest, ie an 
all-day D event with almost no in-person talks, possibly 
co-ordinated with other cities. I think this would be _much 
better_ for D than DConf.


 3) Get the core team together as a separate event, either as 
 an offline retreat or online video conference or both. I know 
 you guys need to meet once in awhile, but it makes no sense to 
 spend most of that in-person time at DConf staring at talks 
 that could be viewed online later.


 If you ever came to one, you might see it differently.


I'm not a member of the core team, so I'm not sure how that's 
relevant. If you just mean that I could observe how the core team 
is getting a lot of value out of in-person talks, I call BS.


 While I find it questionable to say that they couldn't easily 
 find and recruit those people online, given that D is primarly 
 an online project where most everything and everyone is easily 
 available online, I see no reason why any of the changes above 
 would stop that.


 There's a very clear connection between DConf and successful 
 collaborations with industry and D developers. Why mess with 
 success?


For the chance of much more success? I'm sure there have been 
some fruitful collaborations and hiring at DConf. I'm saying 
there would likely be _even more_ with my suggestions.


 It seems clear to me that you, at the very least, have not 
 engaged with the links and ideas I've been providing about why 
 the current DConf format is broken.


 Your opinions would have more weight if (1) you've ever 
 attended a DConf


Perhaps but since I haven't been, you could presumably articulate 
what you find so great about DConf that contradicts my opinions, 
but you mention nothing here and your reasons elsewhere aren't 
too worthwhile.


 and (2) can point to successful instantiations of your theories.


What do you consider a "theory" above: that you could have better 
outreach at several locations or that pre-recorded talks watched 
at home are a better use of valuable in-person time? I don't 
think that's theorizing, it's well-accepted by most everyone who 
knows these subjects.

I started off by pointing to documented evidence of conferences 
going down, and popular bloggers and people who track this stuff 
talking about how online talks have replaced them, so it is 
well-known that this trend away from the old conference format is 
underway.

I find it strange that you call documented social trends "my 
theories."


 My fundamental point is that the current DConf conference 
 format is an outdated relic, that made sense decades ago when 
 getting everybody together in a room in Berlin was a fantastic 
 way to get everybody connected. With the ready availability of 
 high-speed internet and video displays to everybody who can 
 afford to pay the registration fee and go to London, that 
 hoary conference format needs to be rethought for the internet 
 age.
 
 I have no problem with anybody disagreeing with my suggestions 
 or the reasoning behind them, but I find it flabbergasting for 
 anyone to suggest, as Mike has above, that the old conference 
 format still makes sense, especially given the documented 
 evidence of it declining.


 People *like* conferences.


Apparently not, or they wouldn't be declining.


 You can buy a Led Zeppelin CD or spend $$$$ to see them live 
 and enjoy it with the crowd. Maybe you'll go backstage and meet 
 & greet. Which would you rather do?


I'm the wrong person to ask this as I don't listen to music and 
so have never been to a popular music concert.

But your question is strange considering all my suggestions are 
about having _more_ interpersonal interaction at more locations, 
not less.


 BTW, another point for the presentations is that we cover the 
 air fare and hotel expenses for the presenters. Quite a lot of 
 people have been able to attend because of this. It's our way 
 of giving a little bit back to strong contributors.


So why not just pay for the strong contributors to come and not 
give talks? This reason is completely illogical.

On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 11:25:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/23/2018 2:59 AM, Joakim wrote:

 I wish those organizing DConf would focus on that more.


 You're free to organize D meetups and conferences as you see 
 fit. Heck, C++ has many conferences, run by different 
 organizations with different ideas on how to do it. Nothing 
 wrong with that.

 Even Andrei and I and some others put on our own C++ conference 
 about 10 years ago.


I have considered doing some kind of online webinar series in the 
past. The way I've been spreading the word instead is by giving a 
talk introducing D at a handful of local tech meetups organized 
by others. When I ask people to raise their hand if they've heard 
of D- not tried or used it a lot, mind you, just _heard_ of it- I 
think maybe 1% raised their hand. I currently live in a bit of a 
technical backwater, but that's not good.

If you look at the total expenditure on DConf as currently 
organized, it probably comes to between $100k-300k, if you 
include all the travel and hotel costs for everyone. What you 
have to consider is the opportunity cost of spending that money 
elsewhere, even given that you will only get a fraction of it 
otherwise, as for many it's really a vacation or their company's 
conference budget footing the bill.

I don't think there's any way the current format, in-person talks 
at a central location, even comes close to the alternatives I've 
suggested in terms of bang-for-the-buck, whether decentralized 
without in-person talks or spending that money on more D interns 
like Razvan or Nicholas.

Of course, it's not my money to spend or decide: I've granted 
that several times. But such bad decision-making comes across as 
severe managerial incompetence to me, which affects me as a 
downstream contributor and user.

 From your flippant responses to me and aversions on the issues I 
raise, I suspect you don't take such non-technical matters very 
seriously. I get the sense generally with non-D decisions in this 
project that you just want to go the safe, conservative route: 
just follow the traditional conference format because it's known, 
ignoring the downslide I've highlighted. I don't think D can get 
very far that way: you have to take some calculated risks on 
non-D matters too, like you did when you went full open-source 
with the language.
Dec 23 2018
parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw gdcproject.org> writes:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 at 16:05, Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 I'm not sure how a talk is supposed to inspire anything
 substantive _before_ you've heard it, and pre-recorded talks
 watched at home would fill the same purpose after.


No one is interested in watching pre-recorded talks.  I think I've
said this before regarding the failed experiment at GHM.


 Perhaps this is a generation gap, as I see that you and Russel
 are a couple decades older than me, so let me give my
 perspective. I've probably watched a week or two of recorded tech
 talks online over the last year, and maybe a couple hours in
 person. Invariably, I find myself wishing for a skip-ahead button
 on those in-person talks, like I have for the online videos. ;)

 I suspect there are many more like me these days than you two.


Nope, I reckon I'm of your generation, and even I don't understand you. :-)

If you don't like human interaction, that's your problem.  Don't tell
others that they shouldn't meet up once yearly to talk about subjects
that interests them greatly.

Meanwhile, I'll be having fun at Dconf next year...

-- 
Iain
Dec 23 2018
prev sibling parent reply Rubn <where is.this> writes:
On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 10:07:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 BTW, another point for the presentations is that we cover the 
 air fare and hotel expenses for the presenters. Quite a lot of 
 people have been able to attend because of this. It's our way 
 of giving a little bit back to strong contributors.



I'll take that to assume you aren't paying for your own ticket, 
your own hotel expenses, etc. I wonder if you would feel 
differently about this if you had to pay for all these out of 
your own pocket. I'd be curious of the total expenses for DConf, 
all of the funds could be used to hire more developers. The pull 
request situation has improves significantly, I can only imagine 
what else could improve with those additional funds. I think it'd 
fair to outline how much does end up being spent on DConf and do 
a logical comparison of money being spent relatively. I know how 
you feel about owing people of the your community nothing though, 
so I guess it's a nice dream. Without those statistics to include 
with the argument it's pointless to argue with you, might as well 
be arguing whether unicorns exist.
Dec 23 2018
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/23/2018 3:40 PM, Rubn wrote:

 I'll take that to assume you aren't paying for your own ticket, your own hotel 
 expenses, etc. I wonder if you would feel differently about this if you had to 
 pay for all these out of your own pocket.


I paid my own expenses for DConf. So did many of the speakers (or the company 
they worked for).


 I can only imagine what else could improve with those additional funds.


Many people have donated generously to the D Foundation. The tickets sales do 
not cover the entire cost of the conference, the rest is made up for by the 
Foundation and the sponsor(s). We've kept the ticket prices low to enable more 
people to come. If there were profits, they'd accrue to the D Foundation, not
me.

If you have specific things you want funded, you can donate with the proviso 
that the donation go to that thing.
Dec 23 2018
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/22/2018 7:11 AM, Joakim wrote:

 I've never been to DConf


I suggest actually attending and seeing for yourself.
Dec 22 2018
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2018-12-22 at 13:46 +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

=20


[=E2=80=A6]

 Given that this conference format is dying off, is there any=20
 explanation for why the D team wants to continue this antiquated=20
 ritual?
=20
 https://marco.org/2018/01/17/end-of-conference-era
 http://subfurther.com/blog/2018/01/15/the-final-conf-down/
 https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ogrdeyojqzosvjnthpsi forum.dlang.org


[=E2=80=A6]

So iOS conferences are a dying form. Maybe because iOS is a dying form? You=
r
evidence of the failure of the iOS community to confer is not evidence of t=
he
failure of the conference in other communities. Others have cited Rust and =
Go.
I shall cite Python, Ruby, Groovy, Java, Kotlin, Clojure, Haskell, all of
which have thriving programming language oriented conferences all over the
world. Then there are the Linux conferences, GStreamer conferences, confere=
nce
all about specific technologies rather than programming languages. And of
course there is ACCU. There is much more evidence that the more or less
traditional conference format serves a purpose for people, and are remainin=
g
very successful. Many of these conferences make good profits, so are
commercially viable.

Thus I reject the fundamental premise of your position that the conference
format is dying off. It isn't. The proof is there.

--=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
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk
Dec 22 2018
next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sun, 2018-12-23 at 08:08 +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

=20
 This questioning of iOS is so removed from reality that it makes=20
 me question if you are qualified to comment on this matter at=20
 all. iOS is the largest consumer software platform that is still=20
 growing, as it's estimated to bring in twice the revenue of=20
 google's Play store (that doesn't count other Android app stores,=20
 but they wouldn't make up the gap):


Fair enough I have no interest in iOS at all. But you must agree that you a=
re
clearly so far removed from the reality of putting on technical conferences
generally, that you are not qualified to make assertions such as "conferenc=
es
are a dead form".


 You could make various arguments for why they're still having=20
 less and less conferences, as my second link above listing them=20
 does. But to argue that iOS is not doing well is so ludicrous=20
 that it suggests you don't know much about these tech markets.


Ludicrous is a good description of the entire situation in this thread. You
are making assertions as though they are facts, working on the principle th=
at
if you shout long enough and loud enough, people will stop disagreeing. A
classic technique.

[=E2=80=A6]


 Yes, the proof is there: the conference is dying. You simply=20
 don't want to admit it.


This is just assertions with no  data and thus is a religious position. And=
 I
know conferences are thriving, you just do not want to admit that.


 This seems to be a religious issue for you, with your bizzare=20
 assertions above, so I'll stop engaging with you now.


No it is you that has faith in the death of conferences, I am involved in t=
he
reality of conferences being a relevant thing that people want to attend. J=
ust
because you do not want to go to conferences doesn't give you the right to =
try
and stop others from doing so.=20

If you are going to stop ranting on this, I think that will make a lot of
people very happy. The idea of this email list is to announce things, not
debate things. Also on the debating lists the idea is to have a collaborati=
ve
not combative debate about things. That includes if some people want to do
something they should be allowed to do it and not be harangued from the win=
gs.
If people want to have a DConf, it is not your position to tell them they
cannot.

--=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
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk
Dec 23 2018
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/23/2018 1:36 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 If people want to have a DConf, it is not your position to tell them they
 cannot.


No worries, we're full steam ahead on DConf 2019. I, for one, am greatly
looking 
forward to it and seeing everybody.
Dec 23 2018
prev sibling parent reply Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator hotmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 08:08:59 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 06:54:26 UTC, Russel Winder 
 wrote:

 Others have cited Rust and Go. I shall cite Python, Ruby, 
 Groovy, Java, Kotlin, Clojure, Haskell, all of which have 
 thriving programming language oriented conferences all over 
 the world. Then there are the Linux conferences, GStreamer 
 conferences, conference all about specific technologies rather 
 than programming languages. And of course there is ACCU. There 
 is much more evidence that the more or less traditional 
 conference format serves a purpose for people, and are 
 remaining very successful. Many of these conferences make good 
 profits, so are commercially viable.


 That's all well and good, but none of this addresses the key 
 points of whether there are less tech conferences being done 
 and whether they make sense in this day and age. There are 
 still people riding in horse and carriage, that doesn't mean 
 it's still a good idea. :)


You say that like some superior technology exists to replace the 
conference.  Yes, DConf may benefit from tutorials, workshops, 
BoFs, whatever, but the value it brings to the community is very 
real.


 Thus I reject the fundamental premise of your position that 
 the conference format is dying off. It isn't. The proof is 
 there.


 Yes, the proof is there: the conference is dying.


Hardly. IME there are two kinds of conferences (or maybe they 
form a spectrum, whatever) academic and industrial. Academic is 
going nowhere, research needs presenting, organisation of 
collaboration needs to happen. Industrial, there is project 
coordination, employment prospectus, business opportunities, why 
do you think companies sponsor conferences? They get their moneys 
worth out of it.

Perhaps you as an individual believe that they are not cost 
effective for you, fine. But consider that the foundation 
reimburses speakers and I personally would be very interested to 
hear what you have been doing with Andoird/ARM and I'm sure many 
others would as well, the question becomes: is it worth your time?
Dec 23 2018
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 09:51:58 UTC, Nicholas Wilson 
wrote:

 On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 08:08:59 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 06:54:26 UTC, Russel Winder 
 wrote:

 Others have cited Rust and Go. I shall cite Python, Ruby, 
 Groovy, Java, Kotlin, Clojure, Haskell, all of which have 
 thriving programming language oriented conferences all over 
 the world. Then there are the Linux conferences, GStreamer 
 conferences, conference all about specific technologies 
 rather than programming languages. And of course there is 
 ACCU. There is much more evidence that the more or less 
 traditional conference format serves a purpose for people, 
 and are remaining very successful. Many of these conferences 
 make good profits, so are commercially viable.


 That's all well and good, but none of this addresses the key 
 points of whether there are less tech conferences being done 
 and whether they make sense in this day and age. There are 
 still people riding in horse and carriage, that doesn't mean 
 it's still a good idea. :)


 You say that like some superior technology exists to replace 
 the conference.


It does, read the first link I gave in my first post above.


 Yes, DConf may benefit from tutorials, workshops, BoFs, 
 whatever, but the value it brings to the community is very real.


It may bring some value, but that's not the question: the 
question is whether we could get more value out of the 
alternatives, particularly at a cheaper cost? The fact that you 
and others keep avoiding this question suggests you know the 
answer.


 Thus I reject the fundamental premise of your position that 
 the conference format is dying off. It isn't. The proof is 
 there.


 Yes, the proof is there: the conference is dying.


 Hardly. IME there are two kinds of conferences (or maybe they 
 form a spectrum, whatever) academic and industrial. Academic is 
 going nowhere, research needs presenting, organisation of 
 collaboration needs to happen.


Research conferences are irrelevant. I don't pay attention to 
them and the fact that the Haskell link Atila gave above says 
their conferences are for presenting research is one big reason 
why almost nobody uses that PL in industry.


 Industrial, there is project coordination, employment 
 prospectus, business opportunities, why do you think companies 
 sponsor conferences? They get their moneys worth out of it.


Clearly not in the iOS community, and according to a commenter in 
my second link above, the Javascript community in his country, as 
the number of tech conferences is going down a lot. It is my 
impression that this is true across the board for pretty much 
every tech community, but I presented that iOS link because he 
actually tallies the evidence. That is a canary in the coal mine 
for the conference format, that the largest burgeoning dev market 
on the planet has a dying conference scene.


 Perhaps you as an individual believe that they are not cost 
 effective for you, fine.


As I keep repeating, this is not about me. I'm pointing out 
trends for _most_ devs, my own preferences are irrelevant.


 But consider that the foundation reimburses speakers and I 
 personally would be very interested to hear what you have been 
 doing with Andoird/ARM and I'm sure many others would as well, 
 the question becomes: is it worth your time?


I don't understand what's so special about "speakers" that it 
couldn't simply reimburse non-speakers that the foundation wants 
at one of the decentralized locations instead. It seems like the 
talk is a made-up excuse to pay for some members of the core team 
to come, when the real reason is to collaborate with them. Why 
not dispense with that subterfuge?

I see little value in a full talk about a port to a new platform 
like Android, that is basically another linux distro with a 
different libc. It's not a matter of my time, I don't think it's 
worth the audience's time. I wish those organizing DConf would 
focus on that more.
Dec 23 2018
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/23/2018 2:59 AM, Joakim wrote:

 I wish those organizing DConf would focus on that more.


You're free to organize D meetups and conferences as you see fit. Heck, C++ has 
many conferences, run by different organizations with different ideas on how to 
do it. Nothing wrong with that.

Even Andrei and I and some others put on our own C++ conference about 10 years
ago.
Dec 23 2018
prev sibling parent reply Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator hotmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 10:59:32 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 You say that like some superior technology exists to replace 
 the conference.


 It does, read the first link I gave in my first post above.


You mean the one that says "I don’t know how to fix conferences"?


 Yes, DConf may benefit from tutorials, workshops, BoFs, 
 whatever, but the value it brings to the community is very 
 real.


 It may bring some value, but that's not the question: the 
 question is whether we could get more value out of the 
 alternatives, particularly at a cheaper cost? The fact that you 
 and others keep avoiding this question suggests you know the 
 answer.


That really depends on the objective function you mean by "more 
value".
"social networks, Slack groups, podcasts, and YouTube" are all 
well and good but they cannot compare (as in apples to oranges) 
to high-bandwidth low latency personal communication with all the 
people that have an interest (business, technical, whatever)  and 
technical expertise in the subject at hand.


 Hardly. IME there are two kinds of conferences (or maybe they 
 form a spectrum, whatever) academic and industrial. Academic 
 is going nowhere, research needs presenting, organisation of 
 collaboration needs to happen.


 Research conferences are irrelevant. I don't pay attention to 
 them and the fact that the Haskell link Atila gave above says 
 their conferences are for presenting research is one big reason 
 why almost nobody uses that PL in industry.


I concede that I find PL theory useless, but not all academic 
conferences are PL theory, and I don't think that the potential 
scope for more academic talks of DConf is limited to PL theory. 
Novel applications of D in anything from physics to 
bioinformatics to optimisations based on immutability to DSELs 
enabled by D's meta programming are all possible in an academic 
setting.


 Industrial, there is project coordination, employment 
 prospectus, business opportunities, why do you think companies 
 sponsor conferences? They get their moneys worth out of it.


 Clearly not in the iOS community, and according to a commenter 
 in my second link above, the Javascript community in his 
 country, as the number of tech conferences is going down a lot. 
 It is my impression that this is true across the board for 
 pretty much every tech community, but I presented that iOS link 
 because he actually tallies the evidence.


I don't doubt those numbers and perhaps the other forms of 
communication do lessen the need for multiple conferences per 
year, but there is a large difference from many to one compared 
to one to zero, in person communication cannot be easily replaced.

Industrial sponsorship is definitely real, take a look at the 
side column of http://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-10/ which I went to 
and talked to the authors of 
https://github.com/wsmoses/Tapir-LLVM for potentially targeting 
OpenMP and other parallel runtimes with dcompute, talked to the 
people developing the SPIR-V target of LLVM, the list goes on. 
I'm going to EuroLLVM (Brussels) to continue those conversations, 
followed straight away by ACCU (Bristol) to give a talk about 
meta programming with D in the context of developing and using 
DCompute. Then a few weeks later I'll be going to DConf for many 
reasons but principally to coordinate development, deal with the 
gripes that have accumulated. I'll probably return home via 
Boston for IWOCL (OpenCL).


 Perhaps you as an individual believe that they are not cost 
 effective for you, fine.


 As I keep repeating, this is not about me. I'm pointing out 
 trends for _most_ devs,


DConf has been growing in size every year it has been held, as 
have IWOCL and the LLVM conferences. I'm sure some topics for 
some conferences are declining, it may well even be an industry 
wide trend, but I'd bet good money that the new equilibrium will 
have conferences as a staple.


 my own preferences are irrelevant.


I certainly hope not.


 But consider that the foundation reimburses speakers and I 
 personally would be very interested to hear what you have been 
 doing with Andoird/ARM and I'm sure many others would as well, 
 the question becomes: is it worth your time?


 I don't understand what's so special about "speakers" that it 
 couldn't simply reimburse non-speakers that the foundation 
 wants at one of the decentralized locations instead. It seems 
 like the talk is a made-up excuse to pay for some members of 
 the core team to come, when the real reason is to collaborate 
 with them. Why not dispense with that subterfuge?


The talks together with the topic of the conference are what draw 
people to the conference and make it economically viable. It is a 
perfectly rational decision. If I was running a conference trying 
to turn a profit I'd probably get more applications for the 
available speaker slots => better quality speakers => more 
attendees => $$$.

DCompute would not exist were it not for that reimbursement, as a 
poor student that made the difference between this is something I 
can work towards, afford to go to and get good value out of vs 
not. Perhaps we could run general travel grants like LLVM does 
but I don't think we're large enough for that, Mike Parker would 
be the person to talk to about that. But if, like me, they are 
students and wan't to have something to talk about to aid in 
networking, then giving a talk will help with that.


 I see little value in a full talk about a port to a new 
 platform like Android, that is basically another linux distro 
 with a different libc. It's not a matter of my time, I don't 
 think it's worth the audience's time. I wish those organizing 
 DConf would focus on that more.


You can choose the length of the talk you think would fit the 
topic. You could cover the basics of using the port for 
developing Android apps, the difficulties you experienced doing 
the port and the troubles others might have in doing their own, 
... as they say, the stage is yours. It would also present an 
opportunity to convince others of the direction  you think we 
should be going in e.g. w.r.t mobile/ARM/AArch64.
Dec 23 2018
next sibling parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 14:20:08 UTC, Nicholas Wilson 
wrote:

 they cannot compare (as in apples to oranges) to high-bandwidth 
 low latency personal communication with all the people that 
 have an interest (business, technical, whatever)  and technical 
 expertise in the subject at hand.


Then why don't we tweak the schedule to maximize the time spent 
on this stuff?! When pressed, everyone says their favorite part 
is what happens outside the talks... so I say we bring more of 
that inside the talk time too.

I'd be pretty happy if we just experimented with more interactive 
stuff during the talks, like I proposed in my last message. We do 
that kind of stuff at my day job in-person retreats and it is 
pretty successful. (Though I'd prefer to go further away, this 
acts as a kind of compromise position.)
Dec 23 2018
parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw gdcproject.org> writes:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 at 15:40, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 14:20:08 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
 wrote:

 they cannot compare (as in apples to oranges) to high-bandwidth
 low latency personal communication with all the people that
 have an interest (business, technical, whatever)  and technical
 expertise in the subject at hand.


 Then why don't we tweak the schedule to maximize the time spent
 on this stuff?! When pressed, everyone says their favorite part
 is what happens outside the talks... so I say we bring more of
 that inside the talk time too.

 I'd be pretty happy if we just experimented with more interactive
 stuff during the talks, like I proposed in my last message. We do
 that kind of stuff at my day job in-person retreats and it is
 pretty successful. (Though I'd prefer to go further away, this
 acts as a kind of compromise position.)


Perhaps it would be nice to have two tracks running.  One with talks,
the other with BoFs, so you can switch between talk / group
conversation depending on which interests you.

-- 
Iain
Dec 23 2018
prev sibling parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:
On 12/24/18 2:44 AM, Joakim wrote:

 On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 22:36:05 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 Huh? It's their decision, not yours. Even if the decision has no 
 reason at all, it's still theirs. What is the problem? Start your own 
 D "conference competitor" if you think you can do better.


 
 They are accountable to the community, so the decision and its reasons 
 matter.


My impression is that the community likes and benefits from these 
conferences, so everything's cool there.


 I, for one, will not be donating to the foundation as long as 
 they continue to waste money this way, just as others have said they 
 won't donate as long as it doesn't put out a Vision document anymore or 
 otherwise communicate what it's doing with their money.


Nobody is asking for your money for this conference (unless you want to 
attend), and if you feel this way, that's totally your choice. I like 
the results that come from the conferences, I've been to all of them 
since 2013, on my dime for 3, and with assistance for 3. I felt it was 
100% worth it for all.


 Nobody cares to debate something that has already been scheduled and 
 planned, the time to bring up concerns was earlier, when you brought 
 it up before. But that failed to convince, now it's decided, time to 
 move on.


 
 So you agree with me that there's no point in "debating" it again, 
 perhaps you should have addressed this comment to Mike then?


Mike didn't start the debate in this thread, you did. Consider how one 
feels when careful deliberation is made, and a final decision, combined 
with an announcement is made. Would you like to have people question 
your decisions AFTER they are made, and commitments have already been 
established? The time to question them is before they are made, not 
after. Questioning after is simply viewed (rightly) as sour grapes. You 
didn't get your way, move on.


 If it's such a great idea, that should be an easy case to make, 
 compared to the alternatives given. Yet all I get is a bunch of 
 stone-walling, suggesting no reasoning was actually involved, just 
 blindly aping others and the past.


 It is easy, for those who have attended conferences and like them -- 
 they work well. All past dconfs are shining examples. Just drop it and 
 move on to something else. You lost the battle for this one, it's no 
 longer up for discussion.


 
 Heh, there was no "battle," as most of those responding didn't even 
 understand what I wrote, like Iain above, gave no arguments (we "like 
 them -- they work well"), and as finally clear from Mike and Walter's 
 responses here, there was no real deliberation on the matter.


You think they just flipped a coin one day, and didn't think about any 
past experience at all? No real thinking must have gone into it because 
only intelligent people can come to the conclusion you reached, right? 
This kind of "debate" where the assumption is that only my way is 
correct is common out there these days, it's tiring. The best thing you 
can do is start a competing conference style and show how it works 
better. I'm sure Walter and Andrei would not discourage more D 
conferences or conference-like gatherings.


 Since they don't take DConf seriously, I see no reason to either: I'll 
 just start ignoring it from now on.


That's unfortunate, but not anything I can change. You have contributed 
a lot in terms of the android port, although I haven't really programmed 
in android (I have a tiny bit, with Xamarin (hated it) and a bit with 
Java (was OK, but crazy complicated) ). I hope at some point you 
reconsider, I'd love to see a presentation on it.

-Steve
Dec 24 2018
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/24/2018 2:22 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 I'm sure Walter and Andrei would 
 not discourage more D conferences or conference-like gatherings.


Speaking for myself (and I'm sure Andrei would agree) we're all for it.
Dec 24 2018
prev sibling parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Monday, 24 December 2018 at 22:22:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:

 On 12/24/18 2:44 AM, Joakim wrote:

 On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 22:36:05 UTC, Steven 
 Schveighoffer wrote:

 Huh? It's their decision, not yours. Even if the decision has 
 no reason at all, it's still theirs. What is the problem? 
 Start your own D "conference competitor" if you think you can 
 do better.


 
 They are accountable to the community, so the decision and its 
 reasons matter.


 My impression is that the community likes and benefits from 
 these conferences, so everything's cool there.


The 0.1% of the community that attend seem to like it, the vast 
majority don't, or at least don't care.


 I, for one, will not be donating to the foundation as long as 
 they continue to waste money this way, just as others have 
 said they won't donate as long as it doesn't put out a Vision 
 document anymore or otherwise communicate what it's doing with 
 their money.


 Nobody is asking for your money for this conference (unless you 
 want to attend), and if you feel this way, that's totally your 
 choice.


I'm not talking about the registration fee, I'm talking about 
contributing anything to the foundation, which Walter indicates 
above covers some of the expenses for DConf.


I like the results that come from the conferences, I've
 been to all of them since 2013, on my dime for 3, and with 
 assistance for 3. I felt it was 100% worth it for all.


Yet you cannot give a single reason _why_ you felt it was worth 
it, or why my suggestions wouldn't make it better.


 Nobody cares to debate something that has already been 
 scheduled and planned, the time to bring up concerns was 
 earlier, when you brought it up before. But that failed to 
 convince, now it's decided, time to move on.


 
 So you agree with me that there's no point in "debating" it 
 again, perhaps you should have addressed this comment to Mike 
 then?


 Mike didn't start the debate in this thread, you did.


I did no such thing: I asked for the reasons _why_ the decision 
was made, considering the previous debate. That is not restarting 
the debate, simply asking for the rationale. Others then tried to 
debate me again, and while I did respect them enough to engage 
with their arguments, I repeatedly pointed out that I wasn't 
looking to debate it again.


 Consider how one feels when careful deliberation is made, and a 
 final decision, combined with an announcement is made. Would 
 you like to have people question your decisions AFTER they are 
 made, and commitments have already been established? The time 
 to question them is before they are made, not after. 
 Questioning after is simply viewed (rightly) as sour grapes. 
 You didn't get your way, move on.


If you're making a bad decision, it _should_ be questioned. 
Almost nothing that has been decided so far would stop most of my 
three suggestions from still being implemented.

As for how they feel about it, I don't care. The reason most 
projects and companies fail is because the decision-making 
process stops being about putting out a good product but about 
"feelings" and various people "saving face," especially when 
higher up the hierarchy, ie politics. And don't make up some 
nonsense that I'm saying that it's okay if everybody starts 
cursing each other out like Linus did: we're talking about 
_questioning a decision_. That is the whole point of having a 
community.

The day this community starts being more about saving face is the 
day I leave it, as that's the beginning of the end, and I don't 
want to be around for that end.


 If it's such a great idea, that should be an easy case to 
 make, compared to the alternatives given. Yet all I get is a 
 bunch of stone-walling, suggesting no reasoning was actually 
 involved, just blindly aping others and the past.


 It is easy, for those who have attended conferences and like 
 them -- they work well. All past dconfs are shining examples. 
 Just drop it and move on to something else. You lost the 
 battle for this one, it's no longer up for discussion.


 
 Heh, there was no "battle," as most of those responding didn't 
 even understand what I wrote, like Iain above, gave no 
 arguments (we "like them -- they work well"), and as finally 
 clear from Mike and Walter's responses here, there was no real 
 deliberation on the matter.


 You think they just flipped a coin one day, and didn't think 
 about any past experience at all? No real thinking must have 
 gone into it because only intelligent people can come to the 
 conclusion you reached, right? This kind of "debate" where the 
 assumption is that only my way is correct is common out there 
 these days, it's tiring.


Not at all, the whole reason I'm willing to debate is that other 
worthwhile perspectives may be out there. I think the evidence 
and arguments strongly favor the suggestions I'm putting forward, 
but I'm perfectly willing to consider other arguments.

That is the same stance they should have, but don't appear to. My 
problem with this "debate" is that nobody was able to defend the 
current DConf format at all.

Consider some of Walter's silly arguments above: at one point he 
says he wants "successful instantiations of your theories," 
implying that these are all things I'm just talking about and 
nobody's doing them, though it's not clear which aspects he 
thinks that of since I've presented evidence for much of it.

But at another point, he says that other D meetups are already 
doing something I suggest (I pointed out that he's wrong about 
that one, but let's assume he believes it), so there's no reason 
for DConf to do it. First of all, 95+% of D meetups appear to 
follow the DConf format of having a single speaker lecture to a 
room, so why isn't that an argument against doing that yet again 
at DConf?

Secondly and more importantly, he's speaking out of both sides of 
his mouth: do you want to do something that nobody else's doing 
or that somebody has done? You can't argue _both_ that you don't 
want to do what others are doing and what nobody else is doing. 
And why wouldn't the former apply much more to the outdated DConf 
format?


 The best thing you can do is start a competing conference style 
 and show how it works better. I'm sure Walter and Andrei would 
 not discourage more D conferences or conference-like gatherings.


This is unrealistic: D has limited resources, better to 
restructure DConf itself. I have already offered to pitch in with 
implementing my suggestions for DConf, in the linked forum thread 
above.


 Since they don't take DConf seriously, I see no reason to 
 either: I'll just start ignoring it from now on.


 That's unfortunate, but not anything I can change.


It's not just because of this, this is merely the final straw. I 
have felt that the talks were mostly not worth my time at the 
last couple Dconfs, that is the main reason.

I see a lot of bait-and-switch going on, where the talks 
advertise something interesting, then talk about something else. 
There doesn't appear to be any attempt at quality control for the 
content of the DConf talks, once the presenters have been 
accepted. This is a problem for almost every conference, but it 
only aggravates the huge waste of time that is in-person talks.


You have
 contributed a lot in terms of the android port, although I 
 haven't really programmed in android (I have a tiny bit, with 
 Xamarin (hated it) and a bit with Java (was OK, but crazy 
 complicated) ). I hope at some point you reconsider, I'd love 
 to see a presentation on it.


See my responses to Nicholas above, I don't think the Android 
port merits a talk. By the same standards I apply to others' 
talks above, I don't think my work merits a talk either. ;)
Dec 24 2018
next sibling parent reply rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:
On 25/12/2018 6:01 PM, Joakim wrote:

 See my responses to Nicholas above, I don't think the Android port 
 merits a talk. By the same standards I apply to others' talks above, I 
 don't think my work merits a talk either. ;)


A talk covering ARM and Android development in general would be very 
well received in the context of D. If you want to be convinced we could 
do a poll on who would want to see it (but I expect quite a large number 
of people would be in support of).
Dec 24 2018
parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 at 07:10:46 UTC, rikki cattermole 
wrote:

 On 25/12/2018 6:01 PM, Joakim wrote:

 See my responses to Nicholas above, I don't think the Android 
 port merits a talk. By the same standards I apply to others' 
 talks above, I don't think my work merits a talk either. ;)


 A talk covering ARM and Android development in general would be 
 very well received in the context of D. If you want to be 
 convinced we could do a poll on who would want to see it (but I 
 expect quite a large number of people would be in support of).


I don't see how it could be worthwhile: nobody has ever given 
such a DConf talk about a port to a specific platform because it 
doesn't really make sense. The whole point of a port is to 
abstract away the platform, so you can simply recompile most of 
your D source for it, as H. S. Teoh has indicated he's been able 
to do with the Android app he's been developing in D recently.

The way to do that talk is to abstract multiple ports into a 
general porting guide, which is the talk Kai already gave, or 
maybe talk about the details of a port to a very obscure or 
different platform, as Igor did this year:

https://dconf.org/2018/talks/cesi.html

While it was fascinating to hear how much work he put into it, 
much more than me, my interest was squelched somewhat because he 
couldn't reveal the platform and it's likely I would never use it 
anyway (not a game programmer). I mean, who really develops for 
non-Windows, non-Posix OS platforms? I haven't since college. For 
those few who do, maybe the talk was great. But the Android port 
wasn't that obscure: it's basically a linux/ARM distro with a 
different libc, Bionic.

If you really mean "ARM and Android development in general" and 
not the details of the port, I can't claim much knowledge of 
that, as I don't have a large Android codebase that I've 
developed and deployed. Hopefully, even if I did, there would be 
nothing to say: as it should be pretty similar to writing D code 
for a desktop platform.

My phone- on whose 5.5" screen I'm viewing the text of this forum 
response as I type it out on a separate, full-sized bluetooth 
keyboard paired with it- has 6 GBs of RAM and 128 GBs of storage 
(of which I have 8 GB free right now). That's about what midrange 
desktops and laptops come with these days (though with much 
larger screens ;) ), so you can't say mobile presents much of a 
constraint in terms of hardware. I've pointed out before that I 
compile code on my phone about as fast as a Macbook Air from a 
couple years ago:

https://forum.dlang.org/thread/sqbtgmbtrorgthsplvho forum.dlang.org

If you see some other angle on an Android talk that I'm missing, 
I'd be happy to hear it, but I don't see it. Maybe someday when I 
have a huge, successful Android app in D, I'll write about or put 
up a talk online about the architecture I used, but hopefully 
there won't be much specific to Android there. :)
Dec 25 2018
prev sibling parent reply Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator hotmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 at 05:01:43 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Monday, 24 December 2018 at 22:22:08 UTC, Steven 
 Schveighoffer wrote:
 The 0.1% of the community that attend seem to like it, the vast 
 majority don't, or at least don't care.


You think we have 200k users? More to the point you neglect the 
benefit of development and progress is shared by all users.


 I, for one, will not be donating to the foundation as long as 
 they continue to waste money this way, just as others have 
 said they won't donate as long as it doesn't put out a Vision 
 document anymore or otherwise communicate what it's doing 
 with their money.






I agree this does need to happen, the foundation will be having a 
another meeting in Feb to set the vision, which I hope will be a 
little more planned and productive than the last one.


 Nobody is asking for your money for this conference (unless 
 you want to attend), and if you feel this way, that's totally 
 your choice.


 I'm not talking about the registration fee, I'm talking about 
 contributing anything to the foundation, which Walter indicates 
 above covers some of the expenses for DConf.


Some additional transparency would help, Mike?


I like the results that come from the conferences, I've
 been to all of them since 2013, on my dime for 3, and with 
 assistance for 3. I felt it was 100% worth it for all.


 Yet you cannot give a single reason _why_ you felt it was worth 
 it, or why my suggestions wouldn't make it better.


I'll give my reasons:
I got a job out of it.
I got useful insight into various bits of the compiler.
I got connections for collaboration with stuff that I'm 
interested.


 If you're making a bad decision, it _should_ be questioned.


Indeed, but none of us think DConf is a bad idea or that the 
format doesn't work for us.


 Almost nothing that has been decided so far would stop most of 
 my three suggestions from still being implemented.


You haven't managed to convince us that that would be an 
improvement.


 As for how they feel about it, I don't care. The reason most 
 projects and companies fail is because the decision-making 
 process stops being about putting out a good product but about 
 "feelings" and various people "saving face," especially when 
 higher up the hierarchy, ie politics. And don't make up some 
 nonsense that I'm saying that it's okay if everybody starts 
 cursing each other out like Linus did: we're talking about 
 _questioning a decision_. That is the whole point of having a 
 community.

 The day this community starts being more about saving face is 
 the day I leave it, as that's the beginning of the end, and I 
 don't want to be around for that end.


I totally agree, but again, you haven't convinced us that it is 
an improvement.


 Not at all, the whole reason I'm willing to debate is that 
 other worthwhile perspectives may be out there. I think the 
 evidence and arguments strongly favor the suggestions I'm 
 putting forward, but I'm perfectly willing to consider other 
 arguments.

 That is the same stance they should have, but don't appear to. 
 My problem with this "debate" is that nobody was able to defend 
 the current DConf format at all.


That reasoning is backwards: in our experience DConf, as done in 
the past, works, and it works well. The onus is on you to 
convince us that it would work better the way you describe.


 Consider some of Walter's silly arguments above: at one point 
 he says he wants "successful instantiations of your theories," 
 implying that these are all things I'm just talking about and 
 nobody's doing them, though it's not clear which aspects he 
 thinks that of since I've presented evidence for much of it.

 But at another point, he says that other D meetups are already 
 doing something I suggest (I pointed out that he's wrong about 
 that one, but let's assume he believes it), so there's no 
 reason for DConf to do it. First of all, 95+% of D meetups 
 appear to follow the DConf format of having a single speaker 
 lecture to a room, so why isn't that an argument against doing 
 that yet again at DConf?


What works at one scale doesn't necessarily work at another. To 
do something very different from a "traditional" conference would 
be a significant risk when what we have works well. As noted 
previously your opinions would carry more weight if you had 
actually attended a past DConf.


 Secondly and more importantly, he's speaking out of both sides 
 of his mouth: do you want to do something that nobody else's 
 doing or that somebody has done? You can't argue _both_ that 
 you don't want to do what others are doing and what nobody else 
 is doing. And why wouldn't the former apply much more to the 
 outdated DConf format?


I don't knowhow many times we have to say it: we do not feel the 
conference format is outdated.


 It's not just because of this, this is merely the final straw. 
 I have felt that the talks were mostly not worth my time at the 
 last couple Dconfs, that is the main reason.

 I see a lot of bait-and-switch going on, where the talks 
 advertise something interesting, then talk about something 
 else. There doesn't appear to be any attempt at quality control 
 for the content of the DConf talks, once the presenters have 
 been accepted. This is a problem for almost every conference, 
 but it only aggravates the huge waste of time that is in-person 
 talks.


It is a pity you think that, I found sone of the talks very 
interesting. Yes quality of the speaker and intrigue of the topic 
varies but such is life.


You have
 contributed a lot in terms of the android port, although I 
 haven't really programmed in android (I have a tiny bit, with 
 Xamarin (hated it) and a bit with Java (was OK, but crazy 
 complicated) ). I hope at some point you reconsider, I'd love 
 to see a presentation on it.


 See my responses to Nicholas above, I don't think the Android 
 port merits a talk. By the same standards I apply to others' 
 talks above, I don't think my work merits a talk either. ;)


More's the pity.
Dec 25 2018
parent reply Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator hotmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 at 18:54:25 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 Simply repeating over and over again that you're not 
 "convinced" is not an argument, nor do your own personal 
 reasons above argue for one format over another.


I don't mean to stoke the flames on this anymore, but I do: I've 
been to past conferences and now that I'm not a poor student 
anymore I'd pay to go to them. I happen to still have plenty of 
free time so watching pre-recorded talks, while not a problem for 
me a) does not apply to everyone and b) loses interactivity.


 I asked for a rationale above and got none from Mike and a very 
 weak, confused one from Walter. It's fairly obvious that there 
 was never any real deliberation on the DConf format, and that 
 you guys have dug in and decided to cut off your nose to spite 
 your face.


I can't speak for other but the rationale or deliberation of not 
doing what you have suggested is the it has worked well in the 
past, and I see no reason for that to cease to be the case.


 Fine with me, your loss.


On the contrary, I think it will (continue to be) a massive 
success.


 I see, so you're arguing that DConf shouldn't be doing 
 in-person talks because it's larger than most D meetups? Don't 
 answer that, scale as a reason makes no sense and there's no 
 way you can make it.


You have that backwards again, As Iain said, watching one 
pre-recorded talk takes an hour, which I'm sure many enthusiasts 
will be able and wiling to spend, scale that up to 20 and they 
may not be able to even if they are willing.


 To do something very different from a "traditional" conference 
 would be a significant risk when what we have works well.


 I see no "risk" whatsoever in change when the status quo is 
 dying, and what you're already doing isn't having much impact.


and that comes down to an apparently fundament disagreement that 
the status quo is not good enough, In our experience the current 
format work very well. I hope you agree that a major change to 
the way things are done will likely have a major impact on the 
quality of the conference: if you think it is bad enough that 
changing it can only improve it then you would, rightly, come to 
the conclusion that the expected value (in the statistical sense) 
of changing the format is positive. However, if you think that 
the change may cause the quality to degrade then the expected 
value of the change of format drops significantly...


 As noted previously your opinions would carry more weight if 
 you had actually attended a past DConf.


 Heh, this is the dumbest possible argument anyone can put forth 
 and you guys repeatedly make it: "I have no arguments so 
 'Magic! You had to be there!'"


...and the change becomes much more risky. The argument of "your 
opinions would carry more weight if  you had actually attended a 
past DConf" stems from the fact that we have experienced the 
conference as a positive well worthwhile to attend event and we 
see the potential for this to get worse in the face of change.
Dec 25 2018
parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 26 December 2018 at 00:06:39 UTC, Nicholas Wilson 
wrote:

 I don't mean to stoke the flames on this anymore, but I do: 
 I've been to past conferences and now that I'm not a poor 
 student anymore I'd pay to go to them.


I've been to past conferences and don't consider it worth going 
even if I was paid to go. The only way I'd even consider it again 
is if either 1) it is in a location where I have other business 
or 2) the format has some change, even if it is a small 
conservative change like what I described in the previous email, 
in at least *some* of the talks.

The talks are either irrelevant, trivial, or vaporware 
(seriously, how much of the stuff described have never come to 
pass?), and there's really no benefit in spending several days of 
my life on that. Especially when I can watch it on youtube in 
half the time (thanks 2x speed playback)... or less (thanks 
skimming around to find the interesting nugget in the sea of 
boredom).

Wanna know my favorite part of the ones I attended? Walking 
around UVU with Prof. Allison.... the one thing I did that was 
NOT part of the official schedule.

That's why I agree with Joakim - we should tweak the format to 
maximize the stuff that BASICALLY EVERYONE AGREES are better - 
the actual in-person interaction.
Dec 25 2018
parent reply Guillaume Piolat <first.last gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 26 December 2018 at 00:51:51 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe 
wrote:

 The talks are either irrelevant, trivial, or vaporware 
 (seriously, how much of the stuff described have never come to 
 pass?), and there's really no benefit in spending several days 
 of my life on that. Especially when I can watch it on youtube 
 in half the time (thanks 2x speed playback)... or less (thanks 
 skimming around to find the interesting nugget in the sea of 
 boredom).


I think this is a bit uncharitable.

Last year I had an amazing time at Dconf.
Went to bike there for 9 days (800km), to arrive the day before 
DConf.
Munich was a beautiful city but Switzerland was very graphic.
Friends jokingly said it was a D pilgrimage and it was, kind of :)

The talks were honestly all interesting, probably being there 
puts you in the mood to really get into them. It's a shame not 
all of them were recorded. I remember those from Johnathan, 
Andrei and those talks on "open methods" more distinctly. Putting 
a face on people you've known from the internet is really 
surprising.

My only regret was not sleeping at the hotel since you don't get 
as many occasions to meet people in a beer settings.

I was more than happy to pay the full DConf price and expenses 
for a trip I will remember all my life.
Dec 26 2018
next sibling parent viniarck <viniarck gmail.com> writes:
Awesome! I look forward to DConf 2019. I'm planning my trip 
already.

Thanks you all who's working behind the scenes to make this 
happen. It's amazing.
Dec 26 2018
prev sibling next sibling parent Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 26 December 2018 at 11:26:52 UTC, Guillaume Piolat 
wrote:

 Went to bike there for 9 days (800km), to arrive the day before 
 DConf.
 Munich was a beautiful city but Switzerland was very graphic.
 Friends jokingly said it was a D pilgrimage and it was, kind of 
 :)


You could still have done that if the conference format was 
altered to increase in-person interaction!


 Putting a face on people you've known from the internet is 
 really surprising.


You would get MORE of that if the conference format was altered 
to increase in-person interaction.

Keep in mind that what I want to do is to tweak dconf, not to 
kill it. Change from 50 minute talk to 30 minute talk + 20 minute 
interaction, in at least some cases.

Or it might be fun to reconfigure a day: have all the day's 
speakers do 15 minute initial talks and pass out "learn more" 
links. Then we have a *two hour* lunch/mingling break which gives 
everyone a chance to digest the morning's information, look into 
the learn more stuff, form ad-hoc study groups, etc.

Then, after lunch, the speakers return for follow up stuff. Talk 
part 2, public Q&A, whatever, using the remaining 25 mins each of 
their time.


I'm open to a lot of ideas... I just want to spend more of the 
in-hours time doing in-person interaction.



 My only regret was not sleeping at the hotel since you don't 
 get as many occasions to meet people in a beer settings.


And again, a huge point I have been trying to make is we could 
get MORE of that if we tweaked the format!

Most everyone cites their favorite and most productive part of 
in-person meetings are actually the after hours stuff. (I hear 
this both from dconf and my day job - this is part of why it hits 
me so much, but the day job has been doing some tweaks this last 
year, to great success - I *know* these changes are for the 
better.)

So why not take some of the after-hours wins into the main event?

Going backwards to this:


 The talks were honestly all interesting, probably being there 
 puts you in the mood to really get into them.


Well, wouldn't it be fun to be able to talk about them or work 
with the ideas more in person?!

With my compromise proposals, you'd still get much of the same 
talk... just use a fraction of the remaining time to interact 
with everyone and their code directly.
Dec 26 2018
prev sibling parent Basile B. <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 26 December 2018 at 11:26:52 UTC, Guillaume Piolat 
wrote:

 Last year I had an amazing time at Dconf.
 Went to bike there for 9 days (800km), to arrive the day before 
 DConf.


👍👍 woah dude !
Dec 27 2018
prev sibling parent reply Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 13:46:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 Given that this conference format is dying off, is there any 
 explanation for why the D team wants to continue this 
 antiquated ritual?


Why are you bringing this again? Are you going to talk the same 
stuff whenever someone mentions some conference here?? :) While I 
admire your persistence I fail to understand why you simply don't 
ignore stuff you do not like. If you do not like conferences fine 
- do not go there, and let us who do like them and think they are 
useful have some fun!
Dec 27 2018
parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 07:08:19 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:

 While I admire your persistence I fail to understand why you 
 simply don't ignore stuff you do not like. If you do not like 
 conferences fine - do not go there, and let us who do like them 
 and think they are useful have some fun!


Some of us want to improve things for everyone else, too.

Isn't that what open source is all about? We do it initially 
because it works for us, but then share it because it helps the 
community as well.

If you actually tried these improvements, you'd probably like 
them. Even our conservative managers at the day job have 
responded positively to similar changes we made over the last 
year.

We're a predominately remote organization and used to have 
org-wide in-person meetings that worked very much like dconf does 
now - someone would be designated to rattle off about a 
powerpoint while everyone else passively watches.

For last year's meeting, my manager (the team I'm on has done our 
meetings differently for a while) convinced the CEO to try a more 
interactive approach for the org-wide meeting too. We did that 
speaker intro, small random group work, whole group conclusion 
pattern.

It was a success. Everyone was more engaged, we had more 
cross-team collaboration (which has continued throughout the year 
as people are more comfortable with each other!), and people have 
shown better retention of the material. Staff surveys about 
subjective feelings about this meeting were up, too, people said 
it is more enjoyable.

And this shouldn't be a surprise! We find in education that using 
a variety of teaching strategies and getting students hands-on 
and working together almost always leads to better outcomes.


Of course, most people STILL say their favorite part was the 
after-hours chats... but I say that's because the in-hours stuff 
was still basically work :P

But I'm telling you, DConf can learn from this stuff. Joakim is 
doing the community a service by trying to get you all to try 
some changes. Even baby step compromises can yield results at low 
risk.
Dec 28 2018
next sibling parent Sebastiaan Koppe <mail skoppe.eu> writes:
On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 16:31:01 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 For last year's meeting, my manager (the team I'm on has done 
 our meetings differently for a while) convinced the CEO to try 
 a more interactive approach for the org-wide meeting too. We 
 did that speaker intro, small random group work, whole group 
 conclusion pattern.

 It was a success. Everyone was more engaged, we had more 
 cross-team collaboration (which has continued throughout the 
 year as people are more comfortable with each other!), and 
 people have shown better retention of the material. Staff 
 surveys about subjective feelings about this meeting were up, 
 too, people said it is more enjoyable.


Nice! I have seen this work as well and it is amazing to see it 
when it happens. Great that your team could be that catalyst.

In my experience it works great in trainings and workshops, but 
it might as well be very enjoyable and productive on dconf. 
Although I would keep at least 60% talks.
Dec 28 2018
prev sibling next sibling parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:
On 12/28/18 11:31 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:


 But I'm telling you, DConf can learn from this stuff. Joakim is doing 
 the community a service by trying to get you all to try some changes. 
 Even baby step compromises can yield results at low risk.


Note that the proposals always ask for format (talk, panel, contest, 
interpretive dance).

So you can always propose a presentation that takes on a format that you 
think will be more useful.

I think the biggest problem with Joakim's post was simply that it was 
phrased like `why do you want to have such a stupid ritual, when your 
money can be better spent doing something else?` Things went downhill 
from there.

-Steve
Dec 28 2018
prev sibling parent Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 16:31:01 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 07:08:19 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:

 While I admire your persistence I fail to understand why you 
 simply don't ignore stuff you do not like. If you do not like 
 conferences fine - do not go there, and let us who do like 
 them and think they are useful have some fun!


 Some of us want to improve things for everyone else, too.

 Isn't that what open source is all about? We do it initially 
 because it works for us, but then share it because it helps the 
 community as well.

 If you actually tried these improvements, you'd probably like 
 them. Even our conservative managers at the day job have 
 responded positively to similar changes we made over the last 
 year.


Etc...

Just to make it clear - I do not say I am against some other 
formats, web conferences, digital meetups, or whatever. I am just 
saying that there are people who still prefer DConf as it is 
(was). If a group of D enthusiasts want to try something else, by 
all means do it! But do not try to be a partybreaker like Joakim 
and whenever someone mentions DConf he starts talking crap...

I see absolutely NO problem at all if there is a regular DConf, 
and some other forms of communication that Joakim, or you, prefer!

This said - can't wait to attend the DConf in the UK!
Jan 11 2019
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?iso-8859-1?Q?Robert_M._M=FCnch?= <robert.muench saphirion.com> writes:
On 2018-12-22 12:18:25 +0000, Mike Parker said:


 Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! We're still 
 ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on this for weeks and, 
 now that we have a venue, I just can't keep quiet about it any longer.


Hi, you should consider the upcoming Brexit chaos, which is expect to 
have a high impact on all airlines. Currently I wouldn't bet that all 
parties involved get things sorted out until May...

-- 
Robert M. Mnch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster
Dec 22 2018
next sibling parent reply Laeeth Isharc <laeeth laeeth.com> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 18:47:40 UTC, Robert M. Münch 
wrote:

 On 2018-12-22 12:18:25 +0000, Mike Parker said:


 Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! 
 We're still ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on 
 this for weeks and, now that we have a venue, I just can't 
 keep quiet about it any longer.


 Hi, you should consider the upcoming Brexit chaos, which is 
 expect to have a high impact on all airlines. Currently I 
 wouldn't bet that all parties involved get things sorted out 
 until May...


I would be happy to bet they do.  The EU and US are already 
agreed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46380463
Dec 22 2018
parent reply =?iso-8859-1?Q?Robert_M._M=FCnch?= <robert.muench saphirion.com> writes:
On 2018-12-22 21:38:42 +0000, Laeeth Isharc said:


 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 18:47:40 UTC, Robert M. Mnch wrote:

 On 2018-12-22 12:18:25 +0000, Mike Parker said:
 

 Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! We're still 
 ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on this for weeks and, 
 now that we have a venue, I just can't keep quiet about it any longer.


 
 Hi, you should consider the upcoming Brexit chaos, which is expect to 
 have a high impact on all airlines. Currently I wouldn't bet that all 
 parties involved get things sorted out until May...


 
 I would be happy to bet they do. The EU and US are already agreed.
 
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46380463


Well, we will see. But it's not the EU and US, but UK and US that 
agreed after your reference. Since I'm not from the US this information 
doesn't help a lot. And the significant part of your reference is this: 
"Theresa May'sBrexit agreement with Brussels says that the UK and EU 
have agreed to negotiate a "comprehensive air transport agreement"for 
UK-EU flights during the planned transition period but it would not 
apply if the UK left the EU without a deal. In September the government 
warned a no-deal Brexit could cause disruption to air travel between 
the UK and European Union countries."

You might be aware that the "No Deal Scenario" is currently much more 
likely... but again, everyone is free to do what they want.

-- 
Robert M. Mnch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster
Dec 27 2018
parent Laeeth Isharc <laeeth laeeth.com> writes:
On Thursday, 27 December 2018 at 17:00:05 UTC, Robert M. Münch 
wrote:

 On 2018-12-22 21:38:42 +0000, Laeeth Isharc said:


 On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 18:47:40 UTC, Robert M. Münch 
 wrote:

 On 2018-12-22 12:18:25 +0000, Mike Parker said:
 

 Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! 
 We're still ironing out the details, but I've been sitting 
 on this for weeks and, now that we have a venue, I just 
 can't keep quiet about it any longer.


 
 Hi, you should consider the upcoming Brexit chaos, which is 
 expect to have a high impact on all airlines. Currently I 
 wouldn't bet that all parties involved get things sorted out 
 until May...


 
 I would be happy to bet they do. The EU and US are already 
 agreed.
 
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46380463


 Well, we will see. But it's not the EU and US, but UK and US 
 that agreed after your reference. Since I'm not from the US 
 this information doesn't help a lot. And the significant part 
 of your reference is this: "Theresa May's Brexit agreement with 
 Brussels says that the UK and EU have agreed to negotiate a 
 "comprehensive air transport agreement" for UK-EU flights 
 during the planned transition period but it would not apply if 
 the UK left the EU without a deal. In September the government 
 warned a no-deal Brexit could cause disruption to air travel 
 between the UK and European Union countries."

 You might be aware that the "No Deal Scenario" is currently 
 much more likely... but again, everyone is free to do what they 
 want.


In the event of no-deal, flights will continue as before except 
UK operators flying _within_ Europe on domestic or intra-EU 
flights will need to get a license.  UK operators can continue to 
fly to Europe, and we already said the European operators can fly 
here.  This is a relatively recent official confirmation of what 
was always fairly obvious - a negotiating position is not quite 
the same thing as the position in actuality.

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/319768/updated-european-commission-reiterates-flights-will-go-ahead-post-brexit

You can read the technical guidance if you wish.  Naturally it 
comes with the spin you would expect.

And since flights to and from the EU will continue to operate, I 
doubt very much that flights between Britain and anywhere else 
will cease to operate.

Britain has a current account deficit with every European nation 
bar Ireland and I think Malta, meaning we import more than we 
export.  The wilder scenarios painted assume that one of the two 
parties would deliberately sabotage their own economy.  I don't 
think so.

I had lunch with a lawyer who advised Cameron and Osborne in 
their negotiations with the EU.  He has written five books on 
Brexit, approaching it from a technical rather than political 
perspective.  He pioneered the suggestion of enhanced equivalence 
which will likely be the roadmap for financial services.  He says 
Brexit consists of a multitude of small problems which will have 
to be overcome by the people closest to them.  But a no-deal 
Brexit would be fine and quite quickly rather positive.

All of this stuff "if there is a no-deal Brexit, Theresa May 
_could_ run out of insulin" - that word could is like nasal 
demons in UB with C.  It's a funny use of the word could - the 
lawyer called the insulin suggestion an insult to the 
intelligence.  And my sister in law is a partner in a 
pharmaceutical regulatory firm here in Germany where I write 
from, and she agrees the suggestion is nonsense.

There's a lot of such stuff about, generated for partisan 
reasons.  The track record of such suggestions is pretty dire - 
both Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England,and Paul 
Krugman, a former trade economist, haha, suggested that the Bank 
was damaging its reputation by making such political arguments.

So it's best to go to the primary sources and technical 
documentation.  There are more entertaining ways to scare oneself 
if that's what one wants.

But flights will be running as good or bad as they ever do,as 
best I can tell.
Dec 27 2018
prev sibling parent reply Adam Wilson <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On 12/22/18 10:47 AM, Robert M. Münch wrote:

 On 2018-12-22 12:18:25 +0000, Mike Parker said:
 

 Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! We're 
 still ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on this for weeks 
 and, now that we have a venue, I just can't keep quiet about it any 
 longer.


 
 Hi, you should consider the upcoming Brexit chaos, which is expect to 
 have a high impact on all airlines. Currently I wouldn't bet that all 
 parties involved get things sorted out until May...
 


I very much doubt that Brexit will cause anything approaching choas 
insofar as airlines are concerned. Currently all international flights 
are governed by the Montreal Convention which was signed by the 
individual states of the EU and not the EU itself, and the ICAO which is 
a UN function. They will remain in force regardless of the UK's status 
vis-a-vis Brexit. There may be the additional annoyance of EU folks 
having to pass through passport control depending on the final 
disposition of Brexit, but that's probably it.

Chaos is a persuasion word that has zero measurable technical meaning, 
it's purpose is to allow your mind to fill it's space with your worst 
nightmares. Whenever I see it in the news I assume that the writer is 
ideologically opposed to whatever event the writer is describing and 
lacks any evidence to back up their claims.

Airlines have had years to prepare for Brexit, and humans are generally 
pretty good at avoiding disasters that they've know about for years. My 
guess is that on Brexit day you won't even notice, save having to pass 
through an automated passport kiosk.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: EllipticBit
import quiet.dlang.dev;
Dec 22 2018
next sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw gdcproject.org> writes:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 23:00, Adam Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 On 12/22/18 10:47 AM, Robert M. Münch wrote:

 On 2018-12-22 12:18:25 +0000, Mike Parker said:


 Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! We're
 still ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on this for weeks
 and, now that we have a venue, I just can't keep quiet about it any
 longer.


 Hi, you should consider the upcoming Brexit chaos, which is expect to
 have a high impact on all airlines. Currently I wouldn't bet that all
 parties involved get things sorted out until May...


 I very much doubt that Brexit will cause anything approaching choas
 insofar as airlines are concerned. Currently all international flights
 are governed by the Montreal Convention which was signed by the
 individual states of the EU and not the EU itself, and the ICAO which is
 a UN function. They will remain in force regardless of the UK's status
 vis-a-vis Brexit. There may be the additional annoyance of EU folks
 having to pass through passport control depending on the final
 disposition of Brexit, but that's probably it.


I do not yet know whether if I enter the UK, that I will be allowed to
leave. :-)

-- 
Iain
Dec 22 2018
prev sibling parent reply =?iso-8859-1?Q?Robert_M._M=FCnch?= <robert.muench saphirion.com> writes:
On 2018-12-22 21:57:09 +0000, Adam Wilson said:


 On 12/22/18 10:47 AM, Robert M. Mnch wrote:

 On 2018-12-22 12:18:25 +0000, Mike Parker said:
 

 Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! We're still 
 ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on this for weeks and, 
 now that we have a venue, I just can't keep quiet about it any longer.


 
 Hi, you should consider the upcoming Brexit chaos, which is expect to 
 have a high impact on all airlines. Currently I wouldn't bet that all 
 parties involved get things sorted out until May...
 


 
 I very much doubt that Brexit will cause anything approaching choas 
 insofar as airlines are concerned. Currently all international flights 
 are governed by the Montreal Convention which was signed by the 
 individual states of the EU and not the EU itself, and the ICAO which 
 is a UN function. They will remain in force regardless of the UK's 
 status vis-a-vis Brexit.


Since you seem to be a topic matter expert on this, I suggest you get 
in contact with these guys 
(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/iata-brexit-flight-disruption/) 
because they don't seem to know what you know.


 There may be the additional annoyance of EU folks having to pass 
 through passport control depending on the final disposition of Brexit, 
 but that's probably it.


Since UK was not part of the Schengen agreement in the past, passport 
control was happening already. So, you prediction doesn't hold.


 Chaos is a persuasion word that has zero measurable technical meaning, 
 it's purpose is to allow your mind to fill it's space with your worst 
 nightmares. Whenever I see it in the news I assume that the writer is 
 ideologically opposed to whatever event the writer is describing and 
 lacks any evidence to back up their claims.


Hmm... Following how the major figures are working, and getting things 
done WRT Brexit preparation and how honestly and clear everyone is 
informed, I can't imagine a better word. From my live-experience so 
far, all these indicators (clearly measureable by reading different 
sources, counting 1 + 1 etc.) are deep in my "chaos classificaiton". 
Maybe it's time to enter the stage and let the world see how you are 
going to manage it... a lot of poeple would be very happy if you do.


 Airlines have had years to prepare for Brexit, and humans are generally 
 pretty good at avoiding disasters that they've know about for years.


You assumption is wrong, since no one knows how the Brexit will look 
like. You might know that "the Deal" still needs to be accepted, which 
hasn't been the case yet. So, nothing concrete to prepare for.


 My guess is that on Brexit day you won't even notice, save having to 
 pass through an automated passport kiosk.


In case of a "No Deal" scenario, I bet against you ;-)

-- 
Robert M. Mnch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster
Dec 27 2018
parent NaN <divide by.zero> writes:
On Thursday, 27 December 2018 at 17:13:19 UTC, Robert M. Münch 
wrote:

 On 2018-12-22 21:57:09 +0000, Adam Wilson said:


 Airlines have had years to prepare for Brexit, and humans are 
 generally pretty good at avoiding disasters that they've know 
 about for years.


 You assumption is wrong, since no one knows how the Brexit will 
 look like. You might know that "the Deal" still needs to be 
 accepted, which hasn't been the case yet. So, nothing concrete 
 to prepare for.


The "Deal" is hated by all sides which is why Theresa May delayed 
the vote by a month because she knew she'd lose. She is clinging 
to the idea that she can get improved terms over the next month 
but the EU wont budge. Her majority in Parliament is so small 
that she has to depend on the DUP in northern Ireland for support 
and they vehemently oppose what the deal sets out for the 
northern irish border.

Honestly i think most likely is we will crash out with no deal, 
or a new vote and stay in. Id say the first much more likely than 
the later. But i cant see the current deal getting through 
parliament nor can I see the EU changing their position.
Dec 27 2018
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Vijay Nayar <madric gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! 
 We're still ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on 
 this for weeks and, now that we have a venue, I just can't keep 
 quiet about it any longer.


Looking forward to it! The caliber of people at these conferences 
has been exceptional every year I've gone, and many of the ideas 
presented have been very valuable, whether they were directly 
related to DLang or not.

Just one small example was a 2017 talk by Bastiaan Veelo on D 
libraries implementing Parsing Expression Grammars, which I had 
never heard of at the time. But the idea ended up being very 
useful for greatly simplifying the interfaces of systems I was 
working on that year.


I've been doing quite a bit of work this year on the Google S2 
Geometric Library in D. If I can benchmark the library against 
the C++ version or show how it can be used to tackle some of the 
trickier real-time problems in large-scale web services, would it 
be a good candidate to try to make into a talk for the conference?
Dec 24 2018
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/24/2018 4:30 AM, Vijay Nayar wrote:

 I've been doing quite a bit of work this year on the Google S2 Geometric
Library 
 in D. If I can benchmark the library against the C++ version or show how it
can 
 be used to tackle some of the trickier real-time problems in large-scale web 
 services, would it be a good candidate to try to make into a talk for the 
 conference?


Sounds like a good idea!
Dec 24 2018
prev sibling parent Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Monday, 24 December 2018 at 12:30:57 UTC, Vijay Nayar wrote:

 Looking forward to it! The caliber of people at these 
 conferences has been exceptional every year I've gone, and many 
 of the ideas presented have been very valuable, whether they 
 were directly related to DLang or not.

 Just one small example was a 2017 talk by Bastiaan Veelo on D 
 libraries implementing Parsing Expression Grammars, which I had 
 never heard of at the time. But the idea ended up being very 
 useful for greatly simplifying the interfaces of systems I was 
 working on that year.


Thank you Vijay, that’s nice to hear!

Bastiaan.
Dec 24 2018
prev sibling next sibling parent Kyle <kyle kyle.kyle> writes:
I'm just some random guy but for what it's worth the recorded 
talks at DConf are valuable to me. I don't much care what format 
the conference takes or if we even continue to have them since 
it's not often practical for me to attend anyway, but I would 
miss the talks. It would be cool if the community would put out a 
standalone lecture or two throughout the year between DConfs. 
Please apply lessons learned this time to make sure all the 
lectures eventually make it to YouTube in decent quality. Thanks 
for the work ya'll do.
Dec 24 2018
prev sibling parent Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London!


That's a funny typo you have for BeerConf there.

BEERCONF
Dec 27 2018