On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:35:27 UTC, Johannes Loher
wrote:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 15:11:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:
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saying some are still following this outdated ritual is not an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.
We talked a great deal about this in your thread
(https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ogrdeyojqzosvjnth...@forum.dlang.org). 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
more interactive."
"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."
https://forum.dlang.org/post/omsxuayxkaqbxeobe...@forum.dlang.org
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.
