On 25/03/2016 04:52, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/24/2016 4:16 PM, tsbockman wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Maybe we should leave politics out of this forum. It adds no relevance
> to programming, generates lots of bad feeling, and there are certainly
> plenty of political threads on reddit for anyone inclined.

... and this is why code of conducts are created, so people can know what is acceptable for discussion and what isn't.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros

On 25/03/2016 14:06, Tobias Müller wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24/03/2016 09:16, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> We're doing just fine with NNTP and Vladimir's forum software.
>>
>> And this is one of the reasons why I've essentially moved from D to
>> Rust. Yes, the forum software.
>
> It's the exact opposite for me. I like Rust the language better than D but
> the forum is much easier to follow than Discourse.
>
> Discourse is using far to much resources/bandwidth. It's a PITA on my
> (quite old) phone.
> For the D forum I've a nice NNTP client that works like a charm.
>
> Tobi
>

What NNTP client do you use on your phone?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros

On 24/03/2016 19:52, Walter Bright wrote:
> DFeed handles that rather well. See this thread as a fine example:
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/nd1gaq$1o1g$1@digitalmars.com
>
> You may argue that there are better ways to present this, but it's
> pretty clear that NNTP is not holding this back.

I disagree. Quoting myself, it doesn't have the:
" Ability to spawn a new topic from an existing one. This is not something that is supported currently. Merely renaming the title doesn't suffice: the sub-topic still remains part of the parent thread/topic. So there is noise around, you can't simply follow the sub-topic, whilst ignoring the rest of the thread, because they are not separate. "

This means people can miss an interesting discussion - like this subtopic, or the "D vs Rust mindset" discussion - merely by dismissing the parent thread - "Females in the community." in this case, which was an incredibly silly discussion to start with).

Even if DFeed were to handle it well, it's just one client. Others would likely not handled it the same way. One of the supposed advantages of NNTP (multiple clients) can also be a shortcoming, because there is no consistent UI. And consistency is important for behaviors or aspects that should be preserved for any user, and not left for individual preference (like spawning a new topic separately).

For example, someone on Thunderbird might open this thread, "Females in the community.", see it's garbage talk, and press "T" which marks the whole thread as read, and skips to the next one. The scrolling here would likely make the user not notice any sub-threads.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros

On 25/03/2016 19:44, Walter Bright wrote:
>> No, there is another shortcoming of NNTP that is innate: it doesn't
>> require an
>> account / authentication, anyone can post without registering, emails
>> accounts
>> can be spoofed, etc.
>
> It's actually pretty easy to add a field with a crypto hash in it, and
> have the NNTP server reject postings without the hash, and then supply
> the hash only with validated account creation.
>
> There's a scheme out there that does something like this for PGP key
> signing.

Yeah, but how many NNTP clients would support that? Certainly one could build this feature on top of NNTP, but then it would not be pure NNTP anymore, and I guess it would break many clients, no?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros

On 3/25/2016 5:57 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Yeah, but how many NNTP clients would support that? Certainly one could build
> this feature on top of NNTP, but then it would not be pure NNTP anymore,
> and I guess it would break many clients, no?

No, it wouldn't. The PGP signature doesn't break clients. They just ignore it (i.e. consider it part of the message body). You'd have the option of what client to use, and if you use DFeed, it could be set to not present unregistered postings to you (a perq of registering yourself, you can customize the settings).

In reply to your other message about starting new threads:

Again, it is not about NNTP, it is about how DFeed chooses to present the thread.

On 3/25/2016 5:36 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> What NNTP client do you use on your phone?

I know there's at least one available on the iphone, and of course you'd have the option to use the DFeed web interface.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/newstap-usenet-newsreader/id292410356

On 26.03.2016 01:34, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> On 25/03/2016 04:52, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 3/24/2016 4:16 PM, tsbockman wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Maybe we should leave politics out of this forum. It adds no relevance
>> to programming, generates lots of bad feeling, and there are certainly
>> plenty of political threads on reddit for anyone inclined.
>
> ... and this is why code of conducts are created, so people can know
> what is acceptable for discussion and what isn't.
>

If they don't know that, plenty of CoCs have been created for them to read. But there's not much point anyway. Programmers in particular should be aware that it is basically impossible to formally specify the intricacies of social rules.

The only thing that would be different with a CoC is that Walter would additionally link to the CoC instead of just making a mature suggestion. Furthermore, people contributing to unwanted discussions would be able to point out that technically, the phrasing of the CoC does not rule out their specific behaviour as they understand the terms used, etc.

Who here needs a CoC to understand that the current thread should ideally not have happened in this form?

On 03/25/2016 01:42 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> On 24/03/2016 17:50, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 03/24/2016 12:50 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>> And this is one of the reasons why I've essentially moved from D to
>>> Rust.
>>
>> It would be interesting to share a few thoughts about your experience
>> with Rust if you have the time. Thanks! -- Andrei
>>
>>
>
> If you're looking for an experience of someone who moved to writing a
> significant code base in Rust, that's not me. The most Rust code I've
> written so far is just this https://github.com/RustDT/Rainicorn - about
> 1-2 man-weeks of effort. and I don't even consider myself proficient in
> Rust yet. (it's damn complicated to master!)
>
> What I meant with my comment above is that I've moved my *time and
> effort investment* from D to Rust, but that doesn't mean the investment
> was writing D or Rust code directly. Rather it has more to do with
> projects like DDT (https://github.com/DDT-IDE/DDT), a project I've
> worked on and off since 2008, but fairly intensively in the last 4-5 few
> years. The DDT IDE has its own D parser and semantic engine (for code
> completion, find definition, etc.), that I built from scratch, and have
> been improving throughout these years. About a year ago or so, I was on
> the verge of massive improvements in this engine.
>
> On one hand it would begin to support template instantiation (not
> perfectly, but enough to support code completion well enough in the
> majority of cases). Most of the groundwork necessary to have this
> analysis work in a lazy and incremental way - such that it would perform
> well under the interactive nature of an editor - was done already.
>
> Another thing nearly completed was refactoring the engine out of Eclipse
> itself, so that it could be run externally, as a daemon process. In a
> way quite similar to DCD, Go oracle, RLS, etc. The groundwork for all
> this was done (also implementing caching, etc.). I think this would have
> been quite interesting because with the template improvements above, the
> DDT engine would have been fairly more advanced than DCD currently, and
> be available to other D IDEs/editors (especially since Eclipse is not
> that popular nowadays, and I'm the first admit, fairly so - Eclipse
> sucks in certain regards)
>
> I was already a bit worried 2-3 years ago when Go came into the scene.
> It would definitely take a bit of mind-share out of D, but like you
> said, Go is not really a competitor to D, so it wasn't that significant...
>
> But then queue Rust coming in to the scene, and essentially I rapidly
> lost my motivation to work in D-specific tools once I looked more into
> Rust.
>
> DDT will still be maintained, but only because I've refactored the
> IDE-generic code into a language-agnostic framework, and built
> https://github.com/RustDT/RustDT and
> https://github.com/GoClipse/goclipse with it. But I won't be working on
> the DDT semantic engine anymore, as far as things stand.

Thanks for the account and good luck with the Rust experience. -- Andrei

On 3/25/2016 5:34 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> ... and this is why code of conducts are created, so people can know what is
> acceptable for discussion and what isn't.


http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004QTOTH6/

On 3/25/2016 8:46 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> The only thing that would be different with a CoC is that Walter would
> additionally link to the CoC instead of just making a mature suggestion.


Be like Billy - behave yourself!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQRuNwOMzW8&list=PLBFA47360BEAFBC75