On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 01:38:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/25/2013 5:40 PM, Manu wrote:
>> Believe it or not, I'm actually a friendly guy! ...or at
>> least, I like to think so... ;)
>
> I can vouch that Manu is a friendly guy!

You may think so, but he is just an hypocrite :P

On 6/26/2013 2:46 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> You may think so, but he is just an hypocrite :P

That's out of line here.

On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 10:06:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/26/2013 2:46 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> You may think so, but he is just an hypocrite :P
>
> That's out of line here.

The smiley isn't there randomly. And frankly, I really like Manu's style, he is intellectually stimulating.

On 26 June 2013 10:46, deadalnix <deadalnix@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 01:38:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> On 6/25/2013 5:40 PM, Manu wrote:
>>>
>>> Believe it or not, I'm actually a friendly guy! ...or at least, I like to think so... ;)
>>
>>
>> I can vouch that Manu is a friendly guy!
>
>
> You may think so, but he is just an hypocrite :P

<grammar> "an hypocrite" ??? </nazi>


Manu's a lovable hippy, and I can vouch having shared a small hotel room with him (though I have bias because I'm a technological hippy also ;)


--
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 19:38:04 UTC, MattCoder wrote:
> But one little thing that comes in mind now is: It really needs this type of conference when we live in Internet era?

I believe conferences privatize information. Dconf is not half bad, but there're much worse cases. Video is low-quality medium to deliver technical information, in some cases it's completely inaccessible. Well, if it's not supposed to share information, then ok, but usually it's persieved in a different way.

On 6/26/13 5:23 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 19:38:04 UTC, MattCoder wrote:
>> But one little thing that comes in mind now is: It really needs this
>> type of conference when we live in Internet era?
>
> I believe conferences privatize information. Dconf is not half bad, but
> there're much worse cases. Video is low-quality medium to deliver
> technical information, in some cases it's completely inaccessible. Well,
> if it's not supposed to share information, then ok, but usually it's
> persieved in a different way.

This all seems very odd to me.

Andrei

On 06/26/2013 03:37 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

> On 26 June 2013 10:46, deadalnix <deadalnix@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You may think so, but he is just an hypocrite :P
>
> <grammar> "an hypocrite" ??? </nazi>

The French are exempt from that rule . ;)

Ali

On 06/26/2013 03:15 AM, deadalnix wrote:

> On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 10:06:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/26/2013 2:46 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> You may think so, but he is just an hypocrite :P
>>
>> That's out of line here.
>
> The smiley isn't there randomly.

I think Walter got you there. ;)

Ali

On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 15:58:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/26/13 5:23 AM, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 19:38:04 UTC, MattCoder wrote:
>>> But one little thing that comes in mind now is: It really needs this
>>> type of conference when we live in Internet era?
>>
>> I believe conferences privatize information. Dconf is not half bad, but
>> there're much worse cases. Video is low-quality medium to deliver
>> technical information, in some cases it's completely inaccessible. Well,
>> if it's not supposed to share information, then ok, but usually it's
>> persieved in a different way.
>
> This all seems very odd to me.
>
> Andrei

You've spent to much time running the confs. When you can't go, they are the most frustrating thing ever. So much information is exchanged and so many people are out of it.

I remember finding myself watching conferences live at completely crazy schedules due to timeshift.

I guess recording provide a fair balance. Especially since DConf's are very high quality.

On 6/25/13 4:36 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 22:16:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> I don't see how we lose anything by having conferences like this.
>
> There is possibly an opportunity cost: I'd be willing to work significant time on D stuff, directed
> by the community, for a year if paid the $30,000 we raised on kickstarter, and perhaps even use
> spaces instead of tabs in the code [!!!] and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
>
> But the conference(s) may end up being worth more than contracting some programmers, so it isn't
> necessarily a loss.

Spending $30k on a single developer vs spending it on a conference attended by 100 people where lots of major issues are discussed is no contest.  The conference every time.

If even a handful of people took something away from the conference and went off and did something that improves the community even a little, the end result is worth a lot more.  And I'm sure that more than a handful of people got great value out of time spent.