April 14, 2007
David B. Held wrote:
> credibility to the D enterprise.  Rest assured that Andrei has not disappeared from the face of D, but he has decided to give up the newsgroup (or rather, he decided that when he felt it got too uncivilized for his tastes).  So, don't hold your breath waiting for him 

May I asked how you know this? Andrei brought a lot to these NG's, and I hope he reconsiders.

Besides, there's always an alternative to "blacklisting" an entire group, and that would be simply to ignore those who a) continually piss you off, b) start making personal attacks and/or c) cannot let an argument drop w/ a "we'll just have to agree to disagree".

> to come back.  He will continue to contribute to D, but in a less overtly visible manner.
> 

Well, at least that's good to hear. I actually think that Andrei did a lot to convince Walter to move on some issues that have often been argued for, and will benefit us all.
April 14, 2007
David B. Held wrote:
> 
> Perhaps there is a small element of personality cult involved, and I think Andrei is popular partly because he is a personable and entertaining guy at times.  He has strong views on many topics and defends those views vigorously.

To everyone but us, it seems.  I'll admit I'm more than a bit disappointed that Andrei gave up on public discussions of D.


Sean
April 14, 2007
Georg Wrede wrote:
> 
> So, we've now demonstrated that we don't deserve the company of people head and shoulders taller than us.

Oh, give me a break.


Sean
April 14, 2007
Walter Bright wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Yes, stardom is nice. Academic rigor is nice. Extensive language design experience is nice. Having a PhD is nice. Highly intelligent is nice. Ability to notice and focus on what's crucial is nice. And yes, many here have at least some of these attributes.
> 
> True, but there's another factor as well - the ability to work with people face to face. That's why we're having the D conference in August. I hope to be able to meet as many of you as possible then.

Very true.  I'll definitely be there, one way or another.


Sean
April 14, 2007
Dave wrote:
> David B. Held wrote:
>> credibility to the D enterprise.  Rest assured that Andrei has not disappeared from the face of D, but he has decided to give up the newsgroup (or rather, he decided that when he felt it got too uncivilized for his tastes).  So, don't hold your breath waiting for him 
> 
> May I asked how you know this?

I know him personally, and he related this information to me directly in a conversation.

> Andrei brought a lot to these NG's, and I hope he reconsiders.

Like others have pointed out, he's pretty busy (like we all are).  For him, giving up the D ng's is an opportunity to get things done.  You should be glad Walter doesn't post as much as Andrei did, or you'd never get bug fixes. ;)

> Besides, there's always an alternative to "blacklisting" an entire group, and that would be simply to ignore those who a) continually piss you off, b) start making personal attacks and/or c) cannot let an argument drop w/ a "we'll just have to agree to disagree".

That's true, but Andrei was expecting the civility of a moderated group, where flame wars and personal attacks are stopped before they are started.  I don't think he has much tolerance for unmoderated groups, and if you've ever lurked on a group like comp.lang.c++, you can see why.  Some even considered starting a moderated D group, but in the end it was decided that D hasn't reached the point where that is net beneficial or necessary.

> [...]
> Well, at least that's good to hear. I actually think that Andrei did a lot to convince Walter to move on some issues that have often been argued for, and will benefit us all.

He's still arguing. ;)

Dave
April 14, 2007
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> To my home town, and those who lost their loved ones in the Bourbon Dolphin
> capside, my deepest condolances.

Helsinki being a port town, and with the Estonia disaster where many Finns died (And Swedes and Estonians), I can think how you feel.

Please, a warm thought to them from me too.
April 14, 2007
Sean Kelly wrote:
> David B. Held wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps there is a small element of personality cult involved, and I think Andrei is popular partly because he is a personable and entertaining guy at times.  He has strong views on many topics and defends those views vigorously.
> 
> To everyone but us, it seems.  I'll admit I'm more than a bit disappointed that Andrei gave up on public discussions of D.

There's a distinction that seems key for constructive
discussion, that does not seem important to some here:
the difference between attacking/defending our technical
creations, and attacking/defending the people involved.

If we take the rules of one moderated forum with which
I am familiar, there are no limits on how forceful
criticisms of designs or implementations can be -- but
no personal attacks are permitted.  Occasionally
something slips past the moderators that others view
as a personal attack, and that usually wastes some
cycles when it does occur.  But rarely is there much
disruption from discussion of technical matters, even
when it's wrong/aggressive/discouraging.  Even the
very best programmers make many mistakes, and they
get to *be* the very best by being open to finding
those mistakes and learning from them.

Here I've seen people say "Why shouldn't A be attacked,
when A already attacked library B?".  The answer is:
A is a person, B is software.  Software doesn't need
people to be civil to it.  People do.  We have to make
decisions about how to use our limited time, and once
a particular avenue ceases to provide a viable return
on investment, it's often time to find another place
to expend the time and effort.

-- James
April 14, 2007
James Dennett wrote:
> Here I've seen people say "Why shouldn't A be attacked,
> when A already attacked library B?".  The answer is:
> A is a person, B is software.  Software doesn't need
> people to be civil to it.  People do.  We have to make
> decisions about how to use our limited time, and once
> a particular avenue ceases to provide a viable return
> on investment, it's often time to find another place
> to expend the time and effort.

I agree.
April 14, 2007
James Dennett wrote:
> [...]
> If we take the rules of one moderated forum with which
> I am familiar, there are no limits on how forceful
> criticisms of designs or implementations can be -- but
> no personal attacks are permitted.  Occasionally
> something slips past the moderators that others view
> as a personal attack, and that usually wastes some
> cycles when it does occur.  But rarely is there much
> disruption from discussion of technical matters, even
> when it's wrong/aggressive/discouraging.  Even the
> very best programmers make many mistakes, and they
> get to *be* the very best by being open to finding
> those mistakes and learning from them.
> [...]

Yup.  I learned much of what I know about C++ from participating in Boost, and I will tell you something...Boost contributors can be the most unforgiving software critics you ever met.  Criticisms can be brutal, scathing, and downright heartless, but they are always about the technical merits of libraries being proposed.  At the end of the day, most libraries survive a crucible of fire, and only the best survive. The attitude of the reviewers, however, is not one of mere jockeying for position, but rather, the pride in the construction of a quality library, and the recognition that Boost has a reputation for quality that cannot be compromised by soft criticism.

The experts (and Boost can undeniably be said to have many, many experts among its members) sometimes disagree on the best way to proceed, and have vigorous debates that pull this way and that (far more extreme than the technical debates I've seen here), and yet there is a mutual respect that keeps the arguments technical.  I've never seen a flame war break out on the Boost newsgroups/mailing lists, and it is completely unmoderated (I mean, there are people designated as "moderators", but as far as I know, posts to the list/group are not individually moderated).  I think the Boost community deserves a lot of respect for being able to maintain that kind of atmosphere.

I remember Robert Ramey tried to submit his serialization library many, many times, which is somewhat unusual because most libraries get a thumbs up or a thumbs down, and many authors abandon a library that gets a thumbs down.  However, on each iteration it got better and better. Understand that Robert had already spent considerable time and effort creating what he thought was a Boost-quality submission on his first try (which is a high bar to meet, believe you me).  Although the community kept saying: "Not this time", they also said: "Please keep working on it."  To get an idea of how many times he revised it, take a look here: http://www.boost.org/libs/serialization/doc/index.html.  And note that it is currently a Boost library.

Nobody thought that Robert Ramey was an idiot for submitting a library 10x.  Nobody thought he was incompetent because there were so many criticisms of his library.  Everyone recognized that he had worked very, very hard on it, and that his work was of good quality.  The problem was simply that it could be better.  As far as I know, Robert never took criticism of his library personally; and even though he was disappointed every time it was rejected, he understood and agreed with the reasons, and went back to the drawing board to make it work.  The reviewers did not put on kid-gloves.  They laid into the library with guns blazing. It would have been easy for a lesser author to give up and move on to something else.  But in the end, we have a Boost-quality library that provides a pretty fundamental service.  That's what I think of as The Boost Way, and having seen it in action many, many times, I have come to believe that it's a pretty sound methodology.

I think it would be great if D had a set of libraries that were certified in this way, by the community of D experts.  One of the biggest benefits of Boost, as I said before, is that it taught me a *lot* about the language.  I think such a meta-library project would provide a similar service for D.  Another thing that Boost does is it highlights weaknesses and deficiencies in the language itself.  And then there is the fact that many Boost libraries eventually get added to the C++ Standard Library.  Most people have confidence in the Boost extensions because they have some idea of how this particular sausage is made.  But if they really saw how bloody it can be, it would probably turn their stomachs.

Is D ready for something like a Boost effort?  I don't know.  Like I implied, it takes more than mere technical merit to form a community like Boost.  But I think it would be great if we asked ourselves if we were ready for something like this, and did what it takes to make it happen.  I think this is something of what Walter was suggesting when it comes to "certified" libraries in DSource.  "Certified" means "peer reviewed *and approved* by experts", and should give the same type of quality guarantee that "Boost Library" does.  Just something to think about...

Dave
April 14, 2007
James Dennett wrote:
> Here I've seen people say "Why shouldn't A be attacked,
> when A already attacked library B?".  The answer is:
> A is a person, B is software.  Software doesn't need
> people to be civil to it.  People do.  

Erin Brockovich: "NOT PERSONAL! That is my WORK, my SWEAT, and MY TIME AWAY FROM MY KIDS! IF THAT IS NOT PERSONAL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS!"

If person C spends extraordinary amounts of time on library B, then it's not surprising that person C would take attacks on library B personally.   Not saying that person C *should*, but it's human nature.

--bb