A real Forum for D

[Abrahm]

"Jude" <10equals2 at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:javc93$oba$1 at digitalmars.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/28/2011 12:12 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> Generally, they suck. They just don't get what a threaded view is.
>> Newsreaders solved this problem decades ago. A thread is not a
>> topic. It's a view showing who replied to which message. Click to
>> expand at each branching point, click to contract, click to see a
>> particular message. At each point, you can see which messages
>> you've read, and which you haven't.
>>
>> I've never, ever seen forum software that can do that. If there is
>> one, point me to an example.
>>
>> Every newsreader does this.
> That's nice. You're just forgetting the fact that oh, you know, there
> are a lot of people who just don't care about "proper" threading.
>>
>>
>>> 2. I thought that that was pretty standard for forums?
>>> Highlighting for threads you've seen and threads you haven't...
>>> not for individual messages, but the last number (25 or so)
>>> messages you've seen.
>>
>> Again, the forum software writers just don't get it. It has to be
>> per message. Why? So in a larger thread, you can instantly see what
>> is read and what isn't. This is NOT equivalent to a chronological
>> sort. I do not read threads linearly.
>>
>>> 3. click the nice little subscribe to thread button and it tells
>>> you if anyone else submits something.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's not it. I want to see if someone replied to a
>> *particular* message.
>>
>>> These are all things that forums have had for a while...
>>
>> I've used many forum softwares. They all just DON'T GET IT.
> I for one am glad they "DON'T GET IT."  I can't stand threaded view.
> Tried it, too much work for so little gain.
>
> What I don't get is why you are soo vocal about such a tiny, little 
> thing.
> Check the thread with your threaded views. No one has suggested that
> we need to REPLACE the current newsgroup.
>
> No one has suggested anything more than "hey, maybe we should try to
> cater to a larger audience, instead of just those who agree that a NG
> is the best way to communicate ever."

Do show the results of the study you did that shows the likely effect on 
the S/N for the D NG when a web forum is introduced. Hey, I'm all for the 
idea of a web forum if there is a bit of some kind that shows where the 
post originated. There is potential then to raise the S/N that way. But 
that's "neither here nor there". I theorize that the "S/N" in here would 
drop with introduction of a web forum. Anyone who wants to know and needs 
to know D, probably already does and is in here discussing it. I think 
the idea that a web forum would somehow bring more substantive content to 
the NG (not that anyone made such a suggestion) is ill-formed. That there 
are those who would wish to and prefer to use a web interface (which 
indeed perplexes me), is valid though. I don't think the backends are the 
same though. Unless you just want a web interface to NGs, but then that 
is limiting to those features that web forum afficionados want.

The suggestion is so much more than just "Why not put up a web forum!". 
In a couple of minutes, and one paragraph above, I've noted some major 
issues with such a PROJECT.

>
> I've noticed that you haven't made an appearance on irc in a while.
> It doesn't have threaded views either, but I don't think that you
> would doubt it's usefulness.
>
> People like it, and I for one really appreciate it's existence.
> It has helped me out quite a bit, and I definitely would not have
> learned as much as I know(very little btw) about d if it didn't exist.
>
> - From my point of view, we have a few people who think that it would 
> be
> nice to have another method of communication, and people who would
> like to restrict other peoples choice based on nothing more than an
> antiquated black and white view of the world.
>
> I have yet to see a 'valid' reason against having a forum.
>
> If you don't want to have an official forum, that is fine.
> If you refuse to allow it on d-p-l, that's fine too.
> If you won't use it, that's fine.
> If you don't think that it would gain enough attraction to be
> worthwhile, great. Say so.
> If you think that it would split the community too much, speak your 
> mind.
>
> Those are all valid reasons to disagree.
>
> "Forums are lame and just "DON'T GET IT" and I don't like them and
> EVERYONE must agree that my method is superior and use my preferred
> method" is NOT a valid reason.

While he may have seemed to have done that, I'll bet that he had some 
issues in mind, as I showed examples of above, too. I can easily retort 
back at you: "You can't just jump in and start coding. Even before 
design, there will be feasibility studies, analysis, planning, etc.". You 
seem to be saying, "why not put up a forum? It's so simple!", but in 
reality, it is a major project, no, multiple projects under the umbrella 
of "program" perhaps. There is "standard" method for going about such a 
thing: evolution of the idea into an evolved concept and shared vision, 
feasibility/impact studies, analysis, ... yada... then if it looks like a 
go the other projects. Yes, that "simple little idea" of throwing up a 
web forum, actually alludes to a number of separate projects, most of 
which are to precede actually "throwing up" (eww) anything.