On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 20:58:16 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> I wonder what the response would be to injecting some money and commercialism into the D ecosystem.
>
> Given how D's whole success stems from its community, I think an "open core" model (even with time-lapse) would be disastrous. It'd be like kicking everyone in the teeth after all the work they put in.
I don't know the views of the key contributors, but I wonder if they would have such a knee-jerk reaction against any paid/closed work.  The current situation would seem much more of a kick in the teeth to me: spending time trying to be "professional," as Andrei asks, and producing a viable, stable product used by a million developers, corporate users included, but never receiving any compensation for this great tool you've poured effort into, that your users are presumably often making money with.

I understand that such a shift from being mostly OSS to having some closed components can be tricky, but that depends on the particular community.  I don't think any OSS project has ever become popular without having some sort of commercial model attached to it.  C++ would be nowhere without commercial compilers; linux would be unheard of without IBM and Red Hat figuring out a consulting/support model around it; and Android would not have put the linux kernel on hundreds of millions of computing devices without the hybrid model that Google employed, where they provide an open source core, paid for through increased ad revenue from Android devices, and the hardware vendors provide closed hardware drivers and UI skins on top of the OSS core.

This talk prominently mentioned scaling to a million users and being professional: going commercial is the only way to get there.

On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 20:09:46 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I would say, as long as the web site is written in ddoc, no real web designer will be interested.

For my work sites, I often don't give the designer access to the html at all. They have one of two options: make it work with pure css, or send me an image of what it is supposed to look like, and I'll take it from there.

Pure css doesn't always work, so sometimes I have to add or rearrange some html stuff for them, but it usually actually *does* work, after they get over their initial "this is impossible" stage.


ddoc would be even easier than this, since the main website skeleton is just a piece of html anyway (see dmd2/src/phobos/std.ddoc and the macro DDOC = ).

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:13:48 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1gz40q/dconf_2013_closing_keynote_quo_vadis_by_andrei/
> 

Torrents and links up, plus a torrent now for the original MP4 of the previous talk:

http://semitwist.com/download/misc/dconf2013/

On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 20:09:46 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-06-25 06:34, QAston wrote:
>
>> ---Get a real webdesigner involved
>
> I would say, as long as the web site is written in ddoc, no real web designer will be interested.

There is no need for designer to know what DDOC is. For the past few years I have worked with many designers which had only basic knowledge about HTML and even less about CSS (most of them don't know anything about JavaScript but they "know jQuery a bit"). They just give me PSD and I do slicing and all coding.

So if any redesign of dlang.org is going to happen I volunteer to do all coding, so there is no need to look for designer which is comfortable writing DDOC.

On 26/06/13 06:14, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:57:18 +1000
> Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> Can you think of a better name than "D Summer Of Code"?  It's very
>> northern hemisphere centric and makes us southerners feel like the
>> rest of the world doesn't know there is a southern hemisphere (or if
>> they do that they don't know the seasons work) :-).
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure the southern hemisphere has summer too...It's just a lot
> colder ;) Nobody called it "D Warm-Summer of Code".
>

Not all of it.  In tropical Australia, they have two seasons - the wet season (aka the suicide season) and the dry season :-).

Peter

On 26 June 2013 09:59, Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> On 26/06/13 06:14, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:57:18 +1000
>> Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Can you think of a better name than "D Summer Of Code"?  It's very northern hemisphere centric and makes us southerners feel like the rest of the world doesn't know there is a southern hemisphere (or if they do that they don't know the seasons work) :-).
>>>
>>>
>> I'm pretty sure the southern hemisphere has summer too...It's just a lot colder ;) Nobody called it "D Warm-Summer of Code".
>>
>>
> Not all of it.  In tropical Australia, they have two seasons - the wet
> season (aka the suicide season) and the dry season :-).


I like to think of it as the soaking bloody wet season, and the slightly
less wet season ;)
Slightly more tolerable than indonesia, which has only a single 'soaking
wet at precisely 4pm every day, but otherwise lovely weather (if you like
humidity) season'...

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Joakim <joakim@airpost.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 20:58:16 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>
>> I wonder what the response would be to injecting some money and
>>> commercialism into the D ecosystem.
>>>
>>
>> Given how D's whole success stems from its community, I think an "open core" model (even with time-lapse) would be disastrous. It'd be like kicking everyone in the teeth after all the work they put in.
>>
> I don't know the views of the key contributors, but I wonder if they would have such a knee-jerk reaction against any paid/closed work.  The current situation would seem much more of a kick in the teeth to me: spending time trying to be "professional," as Andrei asks, and producing a viable, stable product used by a million developers, corporate users included, but never receiving any compensation for this great tool you've poured effort into, that your users are presumably often making money with.
>
> I understand that such a shift from being mostly OSS to having some closed components can be tricky, but that depends on the particular community.  I don't think any OSS project has ever become popular without having some sort of commercial model attached to it.  C++ would be nowhere without commercial compilers; linux would be unheard of without IBM and Red Hat figuring out a consulting/support model around it; and Android would not have put the linux kernel on hundreds of millions of computing devices without the hybrid model that Google employed, where they provide an open source core, paid for through increased ad revenue from Android devices, and the hardware vendors provide closed hardware drivers and UI skins on top of the OSS core.
>
> This talk prominently mentioned scaling to a million users and being professional: going commercial is the only way to get there.
>

IDEs are something you can have a freemium model for.  Core languages are
not these days.  If you have to pay to get the optimized version of the
language there are just too many other places to look that don't charge.
 You want the best version of the language to be in everyone's hands.  But
there can be some tools you have to pay for.  http://www.wingware.com/ is a
good example of a commercial Python IDE that adds value to the community
with a commercial offering.  I paid for a copy back when I was doing a lot
of python development.   It is definitely not a business I would want to be
in, though.  I was surprised to see they are still alive, actually.  Hard
to make much money selling things to developers.

--bb

On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 01:25:42 UTC, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Joakim <joakim@airpost.net> wrote:
>> This talk prominently mentioned scaling to a million users and being
>> professional: going commercial is the only way to get there.
>>
>
> IDEs are something you can have a freemium model for.  Core languages are
> not these days.  If you have to pay to get the optimized version of the
> language there are just too many other places to look that don't charge.
>  You want the best version of the language to be in everyone's hands...  Hard to make much money selling things to developers.
I agree that there is a lot of competition for programming languages.  However, Visual Studio brought in $400 million in extensions alone a couple years back:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/somasegar/archive/2011/04/12/happy-1st-birthday-visual-studio-2010.aspx

Microsoft doesn't break out numbers for Visual Studio itself, but it might be a billion+ dollars a year, not to mention all the other commercial C++ compilers out there.  If the aim is to displace C++ and gain a million users, it is impossible to do so without commercial implementations.  All the languages that you are thinking about that do no offer a single commercial implementation- remember, even Perl and Python have commercial options, eg ActiveState- have almost no usage compared to C++.  It is true that there are large companies like Apple or Sun/Oracle that give away a lot of tooling for free, but D doesn't have such corporate backing.

It is amazing how far D has gotten with no business model: money certainly isn't everything.  But it is probably impossible to get to a million users or offer professionalism without commercial implementations.

In any case, the fact that the D front-end is under the Artistic license and most of the rest of the code is released under similarly liberal licensing means that someone can do this on their own, without any other permission from the community, and I expect that if D is successful, someone will.

I'm simply suggesting that the original developers jump-start that process by doing it themselves, in the hybrid form I've suggested, rather than potentially getting cut out of the decision-making process when somebody else does it.

On 2013-06-25 22:19, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Truth be told the designer delivered HTML, which we converted to DDoc.

Ok, I see that "web designer" was properly not the correct word(s). "Web developer" is perhaps better. The one who builds the final format.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-06-25 23:45, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

> For my work sites, I often don't give the designer access to the html at
> all. They have one of two options: make it work with pure css, or send
> me an image of what it is supposed to look like, and I'll take it from
> there.

"web designer" was properly not the best word(s). I would say that you're talking about the graphical designer I was talking about the one implementing the design, web developer/frontend developer or what to call it.

I wouldn't give the graphical designer access to the code either. It needs to be integrated with the backend code (which is Ruby or similar) anyway, to fetch the correct data and so on.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg