Make D more public visible

[Nick Sabalausky]

"BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff15bf58cce33805255eea at news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello retard,
>
>> Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:26:19 +0000, BCS wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Simen,
>>>
>>>> On 25.06.2010 19:47, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Simen Haugen"<simen at norstat.no>  wrote in message
>>>>> news:i01t9q$2oj8$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've just started using stackoverflow.com, and it's a great way of
>>>>>> getting answers.
>>>>>>
>>>>> All I'm going to say is:
>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/digitalmars-d@puremagic.com/msg31735.ht
>>>>> ml
>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>> Not sent from an iPhone.
>>>> Hehe. From this and other posts you make, it seems you are suffering
>>>> from a serious case of the NIH syndrome :)
>>>>
>>> Why do you say that? After writing about half of that thread, I am of
>>> the opinion he holds his opinion for reason that have nothing to do
>>> worth NIH.
>>>
>> The sad fact is, there can't be many good stackoverflow kind of sites.
>> You can perhaps attract some part of the community, e.g. noobs or d
>> users in this case, but you can't beat stackoverflow anymore. What we
>> had before? Expert-sexchange. All kinds of crap with closed source
>> mentality. And national programming boards. Stackoverflow
>> revolutionized things, you can't beat it. And no, writing the web
>> server won't make it better/faster - it would just suck more. NIH.
>>
>
> I still don't see how that is NIH. The issues Nick brought up are 
> implementation issues (the use of OpenID, mandatory JavaScript,

...JS nag banner...
...and no so much the use of OpenID, but the requirement of it for any login 
(and the consequential "pushing" of OpenID).

> etc.) Under the constraints he has chosen to apply to him self, SO as 
> implemented is effectively unusable. From what I remember, I suspect that 
> if these issue were addressed Nick wouldn't have any problem using SO.
>

Exactly. (As long as they didn't screw up something else in the process.)

And I did make [polite] suggestions for these improvements awhile back, but 
they were outright dismissed. It's clear they're not willing to fix any of 
it.

And for the record, the anti-NIH horse gets trotted out far too often, 
anyway. There used to be a well-known saying, "If you want something done 
right, you have to do it yourself." (Experience frequently demonstrates that 
to be true.) But then a bunch of managers (inherently stupid) and IT monkeys 
showed up that didn't know anything about software and decided the best 
thing to do in any conceivable situation is always to go out and buy 
whatever package some salesman is pitching no matter how crappy it is. And 
they defended their idiocy with a FUD-storm against anyone ever writing 
anything in-house. And it worked, and now all the buzzword sheep out there 
trot out that damn NIH garbage anytime there's a hint of someone wanting to 
write something that's similar to something else that exists but sucks. (And 
yes, of course there are extreme cases where NIH does occur to an absurd 
degree, but those cases are far less common than the anti-NIH brigade would 
[and does] have everyone believe.)