On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:26:36 -0400
Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
> 
> > Still, 10 months seems crazy. As
> > somebody mentioned before, 1 month seems much more reasonable, 2 at
> > most.
> 
> With three a week we'll be done in five more weeks. Please explain why you find that unreasonable.
> 

5 weeks < 2 months

He never said that was unreasonable, in fact just the opposite.

On 05/12/2013 04:19 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-05-11 22:50, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 
>> He's serious. If you post them all at once, then each video gets minimal
>> impact. A lot of people will look at one, maybe two, and then not
>> bother with
>> the rest, because all of them showed up at once, whereas if they're
>> posted
>> over a longer period of time, then each video will have larger a impact,
>> because it'll be showing up by itself, and it increases the chances of
>> more
>> casual people viewing it.
>>
>> Yes. This sucks for those who didn't get the chance to go to the
>> conference
>> and who will definitely view all of them regardless of how quickly
>> they're
>> released, but it produces better PR for the language this way. We'll keep
>> getting new posts on reddit or wherever over a period of several weeks as
>> opposed to it being more of a blip on people's radar and then gone.
> 
> Can't we upload all of them somewhere more private.
> 

The problem with that is that some asshat will share them publicly to get karma.

I understand why and I acknowledge it is probably for the best, but I wanna marathon dangit!

On 05/10/2013 08:00 PM, Flamaros wrote:
> On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 18:45:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 08:08:09 -0400
>> Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>>> Enjoy!
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPr2UspS0fE
>>>
>>
>> Torrents up for both the low-quality FLV (from YouTube) and the
>> full-quality MP4 (from archive.org):
>>
>> http://semitwist.com/download/misc/dconf2013/
>>
>> I don't know how much interest there is in torrents of these now that archive.org is (awesomely) hosting direct downloads of the original full quality. But since I'm planning on grabbing all of them anyway, I may as well continue tossing the torrents together while I'm at it.
> 
> I prefers the torrent, thx.

I do as well, I shall seed.

On 05/12/2013 01:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 7:16 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I was also thinking mon/wed/fri would be a great schedule!
> 
> That does fit in with the observed phenomenon that a posting on reddit has a shelf life of about 2 days, and the statistics that posting on reddit on a weekend dooms it.
> 

+1

On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 12:08:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> ...

After some more thinking on topic I get the feeling that this is yet another case when having defined and working "scope" for function parameters would have been extremely useful.

Lets imagine some string processing function I want to use:

    int foo(string);

That is like Phobos string processing functions are defined, they take immutable(char)[], not const(char)[]. That is good in a sense that guarantees that function thread safety, but becomes an issue when you want to use that function with a mutable char buffer (some typical network packet manipulation, for example).

Presentation recommends to use assumeUnique in such cases as you can be sure that mutable entity only exists in calling scope and is practically immutable for the duration of function call. However, this is potentially dangerous, because foo may save reference of some kind to its immutable argument in global state and then your program is in undefined behavior. It is OK with Phobos string processing functions because common sense and open sources guarantee that no such stuff happens, but in general this sounds like a type system hole.

scope may have solved it.

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 09:42:06 Dicebot wrote:
> On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 12:08:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > ...

You probably should actually quote part of the message so that it's easier to figure out exactly which message you're replying to it.

> Presentation recommends to use assumeUnique in such cases as you can be sure that mutable entity only exists in calling scope and is practically immutable for the duration of function call. However, this is potentially dangerous, because foo may save reference of some kind to its immutable argument in global state and then your program is in undefined behavior. It is OK with Phobos string processing functions because common sense and open sources guarantee that no such stuff happens, but in general this sounds like a type system hole.

assumeUnique really should only be used when you construct something that you can't construct as immutable but want as immutable. Using it to simply pass to a function is a _bad_ idea in the general case. You can get away with it if you know exactly what the function does and code accordingly, but all it takes is the code being changed, and you could get some nasty bugs (especially if you were casting away immutable on the return value with the assemption that it was a slice of the original, and that assumption didn't hold true in the long term).

But really, what it comes down to is that in general, if functions need immutable(char)[] or are going to be copying the string to immutable, they should take string explicitly, but otherwise, they should probably be accepting const or inout or be templated. Most string functions in Phobos are templated. What's less clear is what to do when a function accepts strings but isn't really operating on them (e.g stuff in std.file or std.net.curl), as they may need immutable(char)[]. In that case, it depends on what's being done with the string. For better or worse though, at this point, I think that it's most common to just accept string for those cases. It's not something that always has a clearcut answer though.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 5/14/13, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTW, for comparison:
>
> Dconf 2007: 8/25-8/27 2007
>
> Slides posted: 7/10/2008

I wasn't around back then. :)

On 5/14/13, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Reminds me of Lewis CK's "Everything is amazing, and nobody is happy"

Well there's always going to be a difference in expectations between the old and new generation. Some things become great, others start to suck. For example I've got this microwave at home which is more than 20 years old, and it still works as great as day 1. Whereas I once bought a (not so cheap) toaster and it broke within a month. Not everything is amazing these days at all.

And once you add artificial restrictions to something, people get mad.

On 5/14/13, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But there is something about having it *available* that compels you to watch it, and eventually ends up making you resent the availability

YMMV (or MMMV). :)

Anyway, yeah this was made to encourage discussions on every presentation, I understand this now.

Andrei Alexandrescu, el 14 de May a las 20:26 me escribiste:
> On 5/14/13 7:24 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >Andrei Alexandrescu, el 11 de May a las 20:22 me escribiste:
> >>On 5/11/13 7:39 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >>>Furthermore, my whole point was nothing more than to merely suggest that *maybe* the delay should simply be somewhat less, *not* a demand or expectation, and *not* even a suggestion that they should all be released as soon as is technically feasable.
> >>
> >>Sure - let's take a quick poll on what would be the best release schedule.
> >
> >As far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer if all videos are released as soon as possible. AFAIK no other conference that publishes videos introduces an artificial delay when releasing videos and slides, just for "PR" reasons.
> 
> With all due respect I'd dare ask how versed you are in organizing conferences, PR campaigns, or anything related. Releasing video recordings with a delay has been the policy of all recent conferences I've participated or organized.

I organized a few a while back in Argentina but as I mentioned before
privately in the conference, there were more like open events to spread
the word, not closed, more developer-oriented conferences. But anyway,
I was talking purely from the "user" POV, I don't claim to have any
knowledge about PR or marketing at all (even more, I tend to hate
marketing because it based on introducing artificial artifacts or
manipulating the reality in some way, but that's a different topic). One
example conference that I certainly know that releases all the material
at once is the LLVM conference, for example:
http://isocpp.org/blog/2013/05/clang-llvm-conference-videos-and-slides-are-now-available

I know other linux conferences do that but I can't remember particular examples right now.

> >I even think is anti-PR to do such a thing (I can see how
> >making one announcement each couple of days in reddit/etc. can help keep
> >D in the spot but I don't see any reason why not to upload the actual
> >stuff and link it in the conference website).
> 
> There is evidence indicating we are doing the right thing. On what basis do you believe it's negative for PR?

My personal experience, just that. For me it sucks not being able to see the talks I couldn't attend. I just assume there is more people like me out there, I guess is not a very wild guess (in fact there has been quite a few other people complaining about this in the NG, even when some supported spreading the videos releases thinking it was better for D).

> >People that is actively looking for the stuff should be able to find it. People that doesn't know about the conference, should get a notification about a new video once in a while.
> 
> People who are actively looking for the stuff will sure find it forever - just with a little delay at start, which I have explained why I find entirely reasonable.

Well, we disagree, I think people actively looking for the stuff should be able to access the stuff (when is technically possible to do so). Again, I agree that spreading the announcements in reddit over time is a good thing.

> >Still, 10 months seems crazy. As
> >somebody mentioned before, 1 month seems much more reasonable, 2 at most.
> 
> With three a week we'll be done in five more weeks. Please explain why you find that unreasonable.

If you read the text you are quoting, I'm saying between 1 and 2 months seems reasonable (so I can't explain why is it unreasonable :)

I can live with that, even when I still think it will be way better to
just upload everything and only make the announcements three times
a week.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoy traje las fotos de mi colon, las quieren ver?
	-- Rata

On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:18:26 +0200
Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/14/13, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > BTW, for comparison:
> >
> > Dconf 2007: 8/25-8/27 2007
> >
> > Slides posted: 7/10/2008
> 
> I wasn't around back then. :)
> 

You must be very young, quite a prodigy, really ;)


> On 5/14/13, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Reminds me of Lewis CK's "Everything is amazing, and nobody is happy"
> 
> Well there's always going to be a difference in expectations between the old and new generation. Some things become great, others start to suck. For example I've got this microwave at home which is more than 20 years old, and it still works as great as day 1. Whereas I once bought a (not so cheap) toaster and it broke within a month. Not everything is amazing these days at all.
> 

Same here. I looked everywhere trying to find a wide-slot toaster that *wasn't* 50's retro, managed to find *one* and it started having problems within just a few months. About 3 years later now, and I still put up with it anyway :) (It's not dangerously bad, the darkness setting just doesn't work unless it's all the way at "light".)

> And once you add artificial restrictions to something, people get mad.
> 

And rightfully so! Which sometimes makes me think I'd be better off knowing nothing about computers. Then, just like all the happy people I see, I'd never notice the artificiality of the restrictions ;)

On 5/16/13, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
>> I wasn't around back then. :)
>>
>
> You must be very young, quite a prodigy, really ;)

I'm still learning the alphabet, I'm only at D now!