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saying some are still following this outdated ritual is not an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.
