Make D more public visible

[Ankh]

In article <i05i5n$1vrt$1 at digitalmars.com>, a at a.a says...
|
|"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.

They sounded a bit like a charitable org to me, but "national", by 
defintion, cannot be so, and I know it. But "that aside", K. Gorlen's 
work is known and historical and paid for. Who is K. Gorlen?

( 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.

YMMV. You just described the stock market. You're a gambler, or not. The 
odds are stacked against you if you gamble. 

>  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.)

"to be honest", I knew the usage of 'NIH' was different than my 
knowledge, but not from the start of this thread (just now). So, what is 
"NIH"?