DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition
dlang at joakim.fea.st
Sat Dec 22 16:57:10 UTC 2018
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:35:27 UTC, Johannes Loher
> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 15:11:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 14:26:29 UTC, Atila Neves
>>> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 13:46:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker
>>>> 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/
>>> 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 saying some are still following this outdated ritual is not an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
>>> 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://email@example.com). 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
"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."
> 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.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce