Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:40:29 -0400, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 6:54 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: My profit on my first condo, which I bought in '99 and sold in '05 was 150% of the *purchase price*. Minus the 6% commission :) Although, it was only 3% because a family friend who is a real estate agent did not charge me her half. And I only had about 5% equity of the purchase price invested when I sold. Consider that you rode the real estate boom using leverage. But that lever works both ways, as many found out to their horror a few years later. You can lose a lot more than 100% of your investment when you lever. Absolutely. But you can continue to live in an underwater-mortgage house if you can pay for it. The problem is when you buy a house that is beyond your means. Which a lot of people did. I've ridden a couple booms successfully, too. I made the mistake of thinking that was business acumen. It wasn't, as I got a very rude comeuppance on the back slope of the boom. I don't have enough history yet, but so far, my real estate moves have been adequate, maybe a bit fortunate. It helps to have a friend in the business :) I certainly don't profess to be a professional real-estate investor. But I believe if I had chosen to rent, my current state would be VASTLY different than it is now now, and that wasn't exactly because of a bolt of lightning, it was an educated choice. It also helps not to live on the west coast, where house prices can be outrageous. I live in the land of the Microsoft zillionaires. It's fun talking to them about their wealth. Most of them realize that they're worth $20m because lightning struck them, and behave prudently. A few delude themselves into thinking they are wealthy because they are business geniuses, and wind up getting reset to zero. Microsoft stock has been flat for 13 years now, and it isn't going to happen again to them. I don't mean to discourage anyone from shooting for the stars in building their investments, I just want to point out that owning a home is far from the sure path to wealth it is too often presented as. As always, caveat emptor. Home ownership for *living* in, is not for wealth. It's for living. You compare it to renting. How much more/less does it cost to own vs. rent, and you have to consider the mortgage tax deduction, the property tax deduction, the equity you build, etc. It's not just a direct comparison of payments. This is all I'm trying to say. It can cost more to live in a house payment-wise, but you can be better off financially. It all depends on how much more or less it is. And the variables are tremendously varied across the country and even between two adjacent towns. Home ownership for *investment* is a completely different ballgame. There, you're comparing it to *not investing*, which costs you nothing :) -Steve
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:29:17 -0400, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 6:54 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Property will ALWAYS have value, even if almost everything else goes to shit. Unless you buy in Detroit! (And that's far from the only such example. Many small towns in America are like that.) Correction, unless you BOUGHT in Detroit :) If you buy in Detroit now, it's dirt cheap and you get what you pay for! Certainly it pays to do research about the community, and not just look at the last year of sales. My great uncle made his fortune during the great depression, simply because he owned land/property outright. When everyone lost everything, so many newly homeless people needed places to stay, so he built very modest very cheap housing. They were grateful to have a place to live, and he was able to avoid all effects from the depression because he had the one thing that everyone needs, and they're not making any more of :) -Steve
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:36:11 -0400, Jesse Phillips wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 21:55:48 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: ...and if you sell it, unless you own multiple houses, you're now homeless. And housing prices are up, so getting a new house will erase the gains you got from selling the old house! So I don't think raising property values makes me wealthier at all. But when housing cost goes up the government can take more from you on anything based on your "wealth." Just because you can't pay because your wealth is all chewed up in material things like a house, who cares! In the US at least, only home sales (or transfers of ownership, like inheritance) are taxed. As long as you live there, they will not (and I believe they cannot) tax you based on the "current value." Property taxes are different, and you will be paying those no matter how you live (rent or own). And you are allowed to transfer equity from your current home into a new home tax free, even if you gained, up to a certain amount. I think there are limitations on how many times you can do this... The tax system is definitely set up to favor the homeowner, not the renter. -Steve
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/2013 6:54 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: My profit on my first condo, which I bought in '99 and sold in '05 was 150% of the *purchase price*. Minus the 6% commission :) Although, it was only 3% because a family friend who is a real estate agent did not charge me her half. And I only had about 5% equity of the purchase price invested when I sold. Consider that you rode the real estate boom using leverage. But that lever works both ways, as many found out to their horror a few years later. You can lose a lot more than 100% of your investment when you lever. I've ridden a couple booms successfully, too. I made the mistake of thinking that was business acumen. It wasn't, as I got a very rude comeuppance on the back slope of the boom. I live in the land of the Microsoft zillionaires. It's fun talking to them about their wealth. Most of them realize that they're worth $20m because lightning struck them, and behave prudently. A few delude themselves into thinking they are wealthy because they are business geniuses, and wind up getting reset to zero. Microsoft stock has been flat for 13 years now, and it isn't going to happen again to them. I don't mean to discourage anyone from shooting for the stars in building their investments, I just want to point out that owning a home is far from the sure path to wealth it is too often presented as. As always, caveat emptor.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 21:55:48 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: ...and if you sell it, unless you own multiple houses, you're now homeless. And housing prices are up, so getting a new house will erase the gains you got from selling the old house! So I don't think raising property values makes me wealthier at all. But when housing cost goes up the government can take more from you on anything based on your "wealth." Just because you can't pay because your wealth is all chewed up in material things like a house, who cares!
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/2013 6:54 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:29:45 -0400, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 2:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Define financially better off :) You have mo' moolah. Is their any other definition? Cash is not always the only consideration. Equity has value. I know that. I took accounting, and know that any asset that can be exchanged for money is as good as money. Home equity can be quickly converted to cash via a home equity loan, or a bit more slowly by selling it. Property will ALWAYS have value, even if almost everything else goes to shit. Unless you buy in Detroit! (And that's far from the only such example. Many small towns in America are like that.) Most people don't notice that both questions are EXACTLY the same. Most people are math challenged. A friend of mine in the used car lot business told me that's how they make their money - off of people who simply don't understand how financing works, even when they're flatly told how it works. Pick up a copy of the book "Influence". I bet you'll find it fascinating! I sure did.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:51:08 -0400, John Colvin wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:54:34 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:44:35 -0400, John Colvin wrote: It's not ready to roll out as the energy of the future, but in certain circumstances it's a good deal for an individual. It's not a good deal for the taxpayers who have to subsidize it to make it a good deal for the individual. Would you buy it if it was full price? -Steve Probably not. However, the subsidies have done a great deal to get the technology real-world testing in a variety of settings, as well as providing cash-flow for practical R+D, especially with regards to more down to earth practicalities. I would say it is - at the very least - not a complete waste of money for the tax-payer. P.S. I'm not buying it at all, my parents did as it represented a much better investment than any bank accounts. In particular, the energy companies pay quite a high price to buy the spare energy. For my day job, our company actually does energy saving retro-fits (all for refrigeration, but many companies do lighting and HVAC). It's an interesting business. Typically the utility pays for most of the cost, and part of it is from the government, but part of it is out of practicality. If they can pay you to lower your energy costs, they avoid having to build more power-plants because energy consumption is continually growing. But from what I've seen in Solar, it's more political than practical. Our paybacks without subsidizing are usually in the 2-5 year range. And our equipment is guaranteed for far longer. The incentive just makes it a real easy sell (usually under 2 year payback). We also sell to large companies that have humongous coolers/freezers (think like home-depot sized), and these places can have less than one year payback *without* incentives. -Steve
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:29:45 -0400, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 2:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Define financially better off :) You have mo' moolah. Is their any other definition? Cash is not always the only consideration. Equity has value. Quality of living has value, and can increase your financial situation. And depending on how much more "moolah", it might not be worth it. Consider that while you are renting, you are paying someone else's mortgage on that property, and at the end of the day (lease), you have nothing and they have a property, worth hundreds of thousands. Whether you succeed or not depends very much on the local market. And this is not even a fair conversation, because there are so many variables to consider. I'd like to pop that default conception that buying is financially better than renting. It's only true if real estate values appreciate faster than inflation plus taxes plus real estate commissions, which is hardly a sure thing. I never said it was *always* better, but it's not always worse either. Now is actually a very good time to buy, because prices are low. A house is a very safe investment, if you can afford the mortgage. Property will ALWAYS have value, even if almost everything else goes to shit. (A lot of people overlook property taxes and capital gains taxes when they make these calculations. I know one guy who cashed in his stock options and bought a house with the proceeds, only to be forced to sell it a year later because he couldn't pay the upkeep and taxes on his salary.) Many people buy too much house for their salary. It's even encouraged by the banks/government, it makes the government "look good" when more people can buy houses. Then you get the market crash of '08. This is actually a pretty despicable practice IMO. Mortgages and housing investments are not things to take lightly, but we use "pre-approval" from the bank, as if the bank says "Yes, you can afford that house!" when it really has nothing to do with what you can afford. And then the government threatened to punish banks if they did not make sure low-income families were approved for houses they couldn't afford. It sounds like your friend was not in that dire of straights though, since he bought his house with cash. Cash that he didn't have before. I'm assuming he got most of that back (unless he was careless about his choice of house). As humans, we seem to consider loss of what we didn't know we had worse than never having gained it. A very interesting study posed two questions to people: 1. You are given $1000, without having done anything to earn the money. You then are given the option to take an additional $500 guaranteed, or a 50/50 chance at getting $1000 more. Which would you choose? 2. You are given $2000, without having done anything to earn the money. You then are given the option to lose $500 guaranteed, or a 50/50 chance at losing $1000. Which would you choose? The vast majority chooses the safe route of gaining $500 on the first question, but then chooses to risk $1000 on the second question because they HATE to simply give up $500 for sure. Most people don't notice that both questions are EXACTLY the same. I can't even recall anyone remembering that selling a house costs you a 6% commission to the real estate agent. Poof! There goes a big chunk of your profits right off the top. My profit on my first condo, which I bought in '99 and sold in '05 was 150% of the *purchase price*. Minus the 6% commission :) Although, it was only 3% because a family friend who is a real estate agent did not charge me her half. And I only had about 5% equity of the purchase price invested when I sold. Of course, in '05 prices were inflated, so the house I bought with that money has since gone down in value. But I'm still pretty well off because of my profit from the first. And I have a very nice house, one which would be tough to rent at the mortgage payment I currently have. Housing prices have to go up a lot to counter all that. They can. They don't have to go up as much as you think. They can go down. You have to be more aware of the market than with renting, that is for sure. But that is true for any rent vs. buy situation when you are looking at a large purchase. -Steve
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/2013 2:55 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: ...and if you sell it, unless you own multiple houses, you're now homeless. And housing prices are up, so getting a new house will erase the gains you got from selling the old house! Yeah, I love that one. But I do feel the house is worth it financially because it erases an ongoing cost down the road. The sum of my taxes and homeowner's insurance are about 1/3 what I was paying in rent, Don't forget mortgage interest. so after the house is paid off, it is like erasing eight rent payments a year. It'll still take time for that to exceed the mortgage cost, but it eventually will, and when that happens, the house could have a $0 market value and that wouldn't matter to me because it still does what I need it to do.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:33:03 -0400 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > Reddit: > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1g47df/dconf_2013_metaprogramming_in_the_real_world_by/ > > Hackernews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5861237 > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/344431490257526785 > > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/655271701153181 > > Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=pmwKRYrfEyY > > Please drive discussions on the social channels, they help D a lot. > > > Andrei Torrents/links up: http://semitwist.com/download/misc/dconf2013/
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/13 5:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 2:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Define financially better off :) You have mo' moolah. Is their any other definition? And this is not even a fair conversation, because there are so many variables to consider. I'd like to pop that default conception that buying is financially better than renting. It's only true if real estate values appreciate faster than inflation plus taxes plus real estate commissions, which is hardly a sure thing. (A lot of people overlook property taxes and capital gains taxes when they make these calculations. I know one guy who cashed in his stock options and bought a house with the proceeds, only to be forced to sell it a year later because he couldn't pay the upkeep and taxes on his salary.) I can't even recall anyone remembering that selling a house costs you a 6% commission to the real estate agent. Poof! There goes a big chunk of your profits right off the top. Housing prices have to go up a lot to counter all that. Whoa. I agree with all that, but this is well-known stuff, not obscure information going against common beliefs. There are a bunch of sites computing "buy vs rent" etc. Andrei
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 21:21:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: For example, my daily driver is an '89 Bronco II. Had to look that up on wikipedia. Yikes, don't corner too fast in that thing, we need you alive!
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 20:02:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:21 PM, John Colvin wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 18:47:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 8:28 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for it. Yeah, but you'll have to replace it before 20 years! Source? There's not much that wears out in a photovoltaic AFAIK. The associated electrical components may break however, especially on some of the more complex setups. Don't have a source, I read it long ago. Note that none of the advertisements, brochures, etc., mention expected life of the PVs. I do know that the life of any semiconductor is measured as the integral of the heat it experiences. Heat causes the doping to migrate, and when it migrates far enough the part fails. PV panels can get pretty hot in direct sunlight. Heating/cooling cycling will also cause cracking. If you're considering a PV system, I'd ask serious questions about the useful life of the system, and what maintenance is required (at a minimum, they'll need the dirt and mold regularly cleaned off). Circuit boards, inverters, etc., also fail, and you'd need some assurance you can get replacement parts for 20 years. A lot of the solar companies give great guarantees on the whole setup (assuming they don't go out of business of course). My parents have had theirs for ~5 years now with no problems at all, other than giving them a quick wipe once every few months and adjusting the angle for the seasons. Admittedly, one has to consider that in the UK they very rarely get particularly hot. We also don't get particularly pronounced day/night temperature variation compared to some places. There's probably some good data on the lifetimes somewhere.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 21:29:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 2:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Define financially better off :) You have mo' moolah. Is their any other definition? And this is not even a fair conversation, because there are so many variables to consider. I'd like to pop that default conception that buying is financially better than renting. It's only true if real estate values appreciate faster than inflation plus taxes plus real estate commissions, which is hardly a sure thing. (A lot of people overlook property taxes and capital gains taxes when they make these calculations. I know one guy who cashed in his stock options and bought a house with the proceeds, only to be forced to sell it a year later because he couldn't pay the upkeep and taxes on his salary.) I can't even recall anyone remembering that selling a house costs you a 6% commission to the real estate agent. Poof! There goes a big chunk of your profits right off the top. Housing prices have to go up a lot to counter all that. In my experiences renting in the UK, a lot depends on the local conditions. For example, low quality housing situated near a university is a fantastic investment as a landlord: There is very little domestic demand for those properties as the academics don't want them and nor do the better paid admin staff, so the prices stay low. However, the rental demand is intense, inexperienced and inflexible, keeping rents very high.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 21:29:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I can't even recall anyone remembering that selling a house costs you a 6% commission to the real estate agent. Poof! There goes a big chunk of your profits right off the top. This is a peeve of mine. I don't see my house as a financial asset, that is I don't see it as something to sell for cash. It's value to me is entirely derived from me living inside it. I saw a politician, President Obama I think, recently say "home values are on the rise, which gives more wealth to the middle class" but is that really the case? The market value is only transformed into cash by a) loans, which aren't a net gain (excepting a lucky investment) because you have to pay them back or b) selling it. ...and if you sell it, unless you own multiple houses, you're now homeless. And housing prices are up, so getting a new house will erase the gains you got from selling the old house! So I don't think raising property values makes me wealthier at all. But I do feel the house is worth it financially because it erases an ongoing cost down the road. The sum of my taxes and homeowner's insurance are about 1/3 what I was paying in rent, so after the house is paid off, it is like erasing eight rent payments a year. It'll still take time for that to exceed the mortgage cost, but it eventually will, and when that happens, the house could have a $0 market value and that wouldn't matter to me because it still does what I need it to do.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:54:34 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:44:35 -0400, John Colvin wrote: It's not ready to roll out as the energy of the future, but in certain circumstances it's a good deal for an individual. It's not a good deal for the taxpayers who have to subsidize it to make it a good deal for the individual. Would you buy it if it was full price? -Steve Probably not. However, the subsidies have done a great deal to get the technology real-world testing in a variety of settings, as well as providing cash-flow for practical R+D, especially with regards to more down to earth practicalities. I would say it is - at the very least - not a complete waste of money for the tax-payer. P.S. I'm not buying it at all, my parents did as it represented a much better investment than any bank accounts. In particular, the energy companies pay quite a high price to buy the spare energy.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/2013 2:20 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 20:51:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Owning a home has lots of nice advantages, but saving money isn't reliably one of them. I agreed with you until last year, but the very low mortgage interest rates and fitting in principle prepayments into my budget tipped me toward the other side. (Then the landlord jacking up the rent and giving me a bad attitude on a short notice inspection pushed me into calling the bank immediately - this is the biggest of the other advantages IMO, not having to deal with a landlord anymore!) But, like with a lot of things, there's no substitute for doing your own math before making a decision. Yes, not having to deal with a landlord is one of the nice perques. On the other hand, there's another landlord you can't get away from - the property tax people and the zoning people and the permit people. You never really own it. If there's an HOA, better read those covenants very, very carefully first. I own the house I live in, I find it worthwhile for me. But I'm not under any delusion that it's some great financial investment. I've previously owned 4 houses, and lost money on two of them (one of them pretty badly). If I sold my current one today, I'd lose a nice chunk on it. Renting can be nice. For example, if your life circumstances change, or you just want a change of scenery, you can just walk away from it.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/2013 2:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Define financially better off :) You have mo' moolah. Is their any other definition? And this is not even a fair conversation, because there are so many variables to consider. I'd like to pop that default conception that buying is financially better than renting. It's only true if real estate values appreciate faster than inflation plus taxes plus real estate commissions, which is hardly a sure thing. (A lot of people overlook property taxes and capital gains taxes when they make these calculations. I know one guy who cashed in his stock options and bought a house with the proceeds, only to be forced to sell it a year later because he couldn't pay the upkeep and taxes on his salary.) I can't even recall anyone remembering that selling a house costs you a 6% commission to the real estate agent. Poof! There goes a big chunk of your profits right off the top. Housing prices have to go up a lot to counter all that.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 20:51:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Owning a home has lots of nice advantages, but saving money isn't reliably one of them. I agreed with you until last year, but the very low mortgage interest rates and fitting in principle prepayments into my budget tipped me toward the other side. (Then the landlord jacking up the rent and giving me a bad attitude on a short notice inspection pushed me into calling the bank immediately - this is the biggest of the other advantages IMO, not having to deal with a landlord anymore!) But, like with a lot of things, there's no substitute for doing your own math before making a decision.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/2013 1:47 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 20:47:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Actually, parts for old cars are a lot cheaper than for new ones! But I think that's an anomaly. I guess it totally depends on where you live. :) In the US. For example, my daily driver is an '89 Bronco II. I can get a new radiator for $20, brake calipers for $80, etc. It's amazing how cheap it is to keep that old heap running in top condition. Just try doing a brake job on a newer car. Ghastly prices. For older cars, like my '72 Dodge, a vast industry has sprung up to manufacture replacement parts, from original to much, much improved ones. It's really marvelous. It is interesting how my old cars are far, far cheaper to keep running than even regular maintenance on a newish one.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:51:53 -0400, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 1:18 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:38:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I have to laugh at this. "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20 years" A 20 year payback time is no big deal to me, the house won't pay for itself compared to renting for a similar timeframe either, but I see it is very worth it. Rents have lagged significantly behind the cost of buying for some time, now (because people buy homes for speculating on real estate price increases). This means you are financially better off renting. Define financially better off :) And this is not even a fair conversation, because there are so many variables to consider. -Steve
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/2013 1:18 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:38:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I have to laugh at this. "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20 years" A 20 year payback time is no big deal to me, the house won't pay for itself compared to renting for a similar timeframe either, but I see it is very worth it. Rents have lagged significantly behind the cost of buying for some time, now (because people buy homes for speculating on real estate price increases). This means you are financially better off renting. Owning a home has lots of nice advantages, but saving money isn't reliably one of them.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 20:47:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Actually, parts for old cars are a lot cheaper than for new ones! But I think that's an anomaly. I guess it totally depends on where you live. :)
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
Steven Schveighoffer: I have no doubt that solar technology will continue to innovate, but the worst thing we can do right now is subsidize it. When it's ready (and it will be), it will succeed on its own merits. The situation is far more complex than that. Bye, bearophile
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/2013 1:11 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 6/11/13, Walter Bright wrote: Circuit boards, inverters, etc., also fail, and you'd need some assurance you can get replacement parts for 20 years. I bet most companies don't even get to live 20 years. And usually the older a product, the harder (i.e. more expensive) it is to fix it or get spare parts (e.g. cars). Actually, parts for old cars are a lot cheaper than for new ones! But I think that's an anomaly.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:18:09 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:38:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I have to laugh at this. "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20 years" A 20 year payback time is no big deal to me, the house won't pay for itself compared to renting for a similar timeframe either, but I see it is very worth it. But the difference is, houses frequently last far more than 20 years :) -Steve
Re: LDC 0.11.0 has been released!
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 03:40:16 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: but there is some funky business going on with CTFE in 2.063 pretty much holding up any further work. Derp. Turns out that actually calling the newly added Expression::init during startup might be a good idea. Working on getting Phobos to compile right now. David
Re: LDC 0.11.0 has been released!
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 08:05:55 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 05:40 +0200, David Nadlinger wrote: […] Not really – if I don't get a first beta of the next version out in the next few days, it will unfortunately take *much* longer (exams mid/end August, need to prepare). […] Is there any way of making the LDC development activity a team one rather than an individual one? Oh, it absolutely is a team effort already, and that "will unfortunately take" should have been a "might unfortunately take". It's just that Kai Nacke has been focusing on Win64 and PPC64 lately, while Alexey Prokhin is planning to look into fixing our general EH codegen (including exception chaining). And somebody needs to sit down and do the boring work of getting all the test cases to work (again) after a merge has been done. But the best way to change that would definitely be for somebody to jump in the cold water and help out with development. Doing a front-end merge (resp. the clean-up work after one) specifically is a great way to get started with development, as you usually get in contact with a number of different areas of frontend and glue code in the process. I think that's also how I got started with LDC development. I can't volunteer myself just now as for the next three months at least I am seriously over-committed. But I do build LDC from master/HEAD for every update and make sure it builds my presentation codes, so I guess I could claim I am already on the alpha-test team. Yes, you are, whether voluntarily so or not. :P David
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:38:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I have to laugh at this. "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20 years" A 20 year payback time is no big deal to me, the house won't pay for itself compared to renting for a similar timeframe either, but I see it is very worth it.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/13, Walter Bright wrote: > Circuit boards, inverters, etc., also fail, and you'd need some assurance > you > can get replacement parts for 20 years. I bet most companies don't even get to live 20 years. And usually the older a product, the harder (i.e. more expensive) it is to fix it or get spare parts (e.g. cars).
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/2013 12:21 PM, John Colvin wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 18:47:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 8:28 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for it. Yeah, but you'll have to replace it before 20 years! Source? There's not much that wears out in a photovoltaic AFAIK. The associated electrical components may break however, especially on some of the more complex setups. Don't have a source, I read it long ago. Note that none of the advertisements, brochures, etc., mention expected life of the PVs. I do know that the life of any semiconductor is measured as the integral of the heat it experiences. Heat causes the doping to migrate, and when it migrates far enough the part fails. PV panels can get pretty hot in direct sunlight. Heating/cooling cycling will also cause cracking. If you're considering a PV system, I'd ask serious questions about the useful life of the system, and what maintenance is required (at a minimum, they'll need the dirt and mold regularly cleaned off). Circuit boards, inverters, etc., also fail, and you'd need some assurance you can get replacement parts for 20 years.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:44:35 -0400, John Colvin wrote: It's not ready to roll out as the energy of the future, but in certain circumstances it's a good deal for an individual. It's not a good deal for the taxpayers who have to subsidize it to make it a good deal for the individual. Would you buy it if it was full price? -Steve
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 19:38:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:21:31 -0400, John Colvin wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 18:47:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 8:28 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for it. Yeah, but you'll have to replace it before 20 years! Source? There's not much that wears out in a photovoltaic AFAIK. The associated electrical components may break however, especially on some of the more complex setups. I have to laugh at this. "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20 years" Solar isn't ready yet. It's not cost effective. But cost effectiveness isn't even the issue. It's not sustainable. You need fossil fuels to mine the materials, ship them, assemble the components, etc. Until you can power all those things with pure solar, you are still dependent on fossil fuel. I've seen all these "Solar farm" installations, and they are butt-ugly. I find it ironic that we are cutting down trees to make room for these things... You can save energy more cost effectively in other ways. I have no doubt that solar technology will continue to innovate, but the worst thing we can do right now is subsidize it. When it's ready (and it will be), it will succeed on its own merits. -Steve It's not ready to roll out as the energy of the future, but in certain circumstances it's a good deal for an individual.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:21:31 -0400, John Colvin wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 18:47:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 8:28 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for it. Yeah, but you'll have to replace it before 20 years! Source? There's not much that wears out in a photovoltaic AFAIK. The associated electrical components may break however, especially on some of the more complex setups. I have to laugh at this. "Solar is *almost* free money *if* you can wait 20 years" Solar isn't ready yet. It's not cost effective. But cost effectiveness isn't even the issue. It's not sustainable. You need fossil fuels to mine the materials, ship them, assemble the components, etc. Until you can power all those things with pure solar, you are still dependent on fossil fuel. I've seen all these "Solar farm" installations, and they are butt-ugly. I find it ironic that we are cutting down trees to make room for these things... You can save energy more cost effectively in other ways. I have no doubt that solar technology will continue to innovate, but the worst thing we can do right now is subsidize it. When it's ready (and it will be), it will succeed on its own merits. -Steve
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 18:47:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Yeah, but you'll have to replace it before 20 years! Here's the beauty of it though: the manufacturer offers a 25 year warranty! I've heard stories of PV panels from the 70's still working too. I betcha the lifetime depends on your local weather conditions and such, I know heat can damage them over time, which might be a positive for being here in a colder area.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 18:47:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/11/2013 8:28 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for it. Yeah, but you'll have to replace it before 20 years! Source? There's not much that wears out in a photovoltaic AFAIK. The associated electrical components may break however, especially on some of the more complex setups.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
Am 11.06.2013 14:33, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu: > Reddit: > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1g47df/dconf_2013_metaprogramming_in_the_real_world_by/ > > > Hackernews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5861237 > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/344431490257526785 > > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/655271701153181 > > Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=pmwKRYrfEyY > > Please drive discussions on the social channels, they help D a lot. > > > Andrei Regarding the IDE thing, did you ever try Kdevelop? Never crashed on me, has syntax highlighting, really basic completion (based on already written *words*, so really basic), but the amazing gdb integration known from C/C++ works! Definitly worth a look.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On 6/11/2013 8:28 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for it. Yeah, but you'll have to replace it before 20 years!
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 16:19:20 UTC, John Colvin wrote: Combine that with good government subsidies and a deal to sell the power back to the grid and it's more like 10 years, max Aye, that's what I was hoping to get (New York State would have given like 50% money back) but alas I went and bought a house with a west/east facing roof, and a gigantic tree due south from me. The installer estimated I could still get maybe 70% of the system's capacity out of it, but the tax rebates get small fast if you go below 80%. My electric usage is small too, so the cost of installation adds up but still, it is virtually guaranteed to pay for itself over its lifetime and I have a good chance of turning a profit from it. That's so cool. Only downside is the upfront cost, and that isn't even *that* bad. And I guess my equipment waiting to be installed uses a grid tie inverter, so if main power goes out, I'm still out, no independence there. But buying batteries and switches for that would just about double the cost, and 99% of the time, grid power is on anyway so just not worth it for me.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 16:19:20 UTC, John Colvin wrote: On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 15:28:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: hah, I have a PV solar module sitting in my house right now... I'll be installing it (and the rest of my setup) as soon as I have another two or the grand to spend. It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for it. True dat. Combine that with good government subsidies and a deal to sell the power back to the grid and it's more like 10 years, max And this is in miserable, cloudy, rainy England. They must pump out a lot more in somewhere like California.
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 15:28:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: hah, I have a PV solar module sitting in my house right now... I'll be installing it (and the rest of my setup) as soon as I have another two or the grand to spend. It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for it. True dat. Combine that with good government subsidies and a deal to sell the power back to the grid and it's more like 10 years, max
Re: DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
hah, I have a PV solar module sitting in my house right now... I'll be installing it (and the rest of my setup) as soon as I have another two or the grand to spend. It is great stuff, solar power is almost free money if you can wait 20 years for it.
Re: Started: Formal Review of std.serialization
On Monday, 10 June 2013 at 16:14:32 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: Please discuss on official thread: http://forum.dlang.org/post/adyanbsdsxsfdpvoo...@forum.dlang.org This library is authored by Jacob Carlborg and has been around through the D1/Tango days. Review is being suspended while we work out requirements for reviewing. If another member wishes to step up and be a review manager for another project, you are welcome to and begin a review. I'll being working on documenting the review process itself. http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue
DConf 2013 Day 3 Talk 1: Metaprogramming in the Real World by Don Clugston
Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1g47df/dconf_2013_metaprogramming_in_the_real_world_by/ Hackernews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5861237 Twitter: https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/344431490257526785 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/655271701153181 Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=pmwKRYrfEyY Please drive discussions on the social channels, they help D a lot. Andrei
Re: Don's talk's video to be online soon
On Monday, 10 June 2013 at 23:54:41 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 6/11/13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:19:20 -0400, Anthony Goins wrote: Will there be video for Andrew Edwards? IIRC, Andrew specifically requested not to be videotaped. I'm having trouble finding the link where that was stated. A shame too, he did a good job! What about the slides, will they be available? Otherwise a couple of brief sentences on what he was talking about would be cool (unless those are secret too :p) It was mainly about how D appears to newcomers, and how we can improve their experience. It was very funny, and contained a lot of autobiographical material. The main technical content is here: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/km6ccu$1ads$1...@digitalmars.com
Re: LDC 0.11.0 has been released!
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 05:40 +0200, David Nadlinger wrote: […] > Not really – if I don't get a first beta of the next version out > in the next few days, it will unfortunately take *much* longer > (exams mid/end August, need to prepare). […] Is there any way of making the LDC development activity a team one rather than an individual one? I can't volunteer myself just now as for the next three months at least I am seriously over-committed. But I do build LDC from master/HEAD for every update and make sure it builds my presentation codes, so I guess I could claim I am already on the alpha-test team. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
