On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 14:59:33 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 14:45:24 UTC, Daniel wrote:
>> One thing that always comes to mind is that D does not have a free, extensive, structured good reference as Go (https://www.golang-book.com/books/intro) and Rust (https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/index.html) do. I mean, compare D's learn section (http://forum.dlang.org/group/learn) to those other links. It's kind of frustrating to newcomers. I've read Andrei's book and its awesome. Couldn't you guys consider making it open and the official book?
>
> Can you give some examples of things provided by those books that are not provided by Ali's book? I ignore any project for which you have to pay to get basic documentation, but I don't see how that applies with D.

It's not about having free docs, it's about having an official and good to use free doc. Yes, I'm also talking about ux here (although being a programmer), not only content - compare Rust's experience (https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/book/) to Ali's (http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/). Ali, I mean no offense, of course. Anyway, I didn't know about Ali's book. Maybe it could be linked at dlang.org's left menu?

On Thursday 20 August 2015 17:18, Daniel wrote:

> Anyway, I didn't know about Ali's book. Maybe it could be linked at dlang.org's left menu?

It's the first link on the "Getting Started" page (added somewhat recently). And it's the first link in the "Books & Articles" section. I wouldn't oppose a link on the top level, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea.

On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 14:59 +0000, Daniel via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> […]
> 
> Oh, an official Docker image would also help. Look at Go's: https://hub.docker.com/_/golang/

Go 1.3, how appallingly out of date, it's 1.5 now.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 19:35:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Here's the pattern that works a lot better:
>
> 1. spend hundreds if not thousands of hours developing something really cool

Check!

> 2. spend 10 minutes writing the announcement to D.announce. Be sure to include:
>    who, what, where, when, why, and how

Check!

> 3. someone posts it to reddit

Wait, what?  They did?

> 4. post the who, what, where, when, why and how on reddit AS SOON AS POSSIBLE after the reddit link appears. Stuff on reddit has a VERY SHORT shelf life. If it doesn't get action within a couple hours, it fades into oblivion. Identify yourself as the author, say AMA. The first one to post a comment tends to spark and set the tone for the discussion.

Oh man, I'm like two days too late for that.
goto 7?

> 5. check back on reddit once an hour or so for the next day, answer questions

Whoa.  I don't have time for that!

> 6. *****

???

> 7. profit!

Fingers crossed!

-Lars

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 19:35:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> I hate the movie "Field of Dreams" where they push the idiotic idea of "Build it and they will come." No, they won't. There's a blizzard of stuff competing for their attention out there, why should they invest the time looking at your stuff? You need to tell them why!

I've never seen that film but I remember a guy who would use this line when we were trying to revive a pub that was in dire straits. The truth is "No, they won't come, unless you have something really good to offer!"

The line is only true of TV, as they said in Seinfeld

"Well, why am I watching it? - Because it's on TV."

Yes, because people sit on their ar*es and consume it passively. But if you want them to actually do something, it's not enough to just build it.

To be fair, wasn't the movie talking about dead baseball player ghosts coming? For people to take that example and apply it to other endeavors in life is a bit ridiculous.

But maybe I'm misremembering. Saw it a long time ago.
On Sep 11, 2015 4:00 AM, "Chris via Digitalmars-d-announce" <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 19:35:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> I hate the movie "Field of Dreams" where they push the idiotic idea of "Build it and they will come." No, they won't. There's a blizzard of stuff competing for their attention out there, why should they invest the time looking at your stuff? You need to tell them why!
>>
>
> I've never seen that film but I remember a guy who would use this line when we were trying to revive a pub that was in dire straits. The truth is "No, they won't come, unless you have something really good to offer!"
>
> The line is only true of TV, as they said in Seinfeld
>
> "Well, why am I watching it? - Because it's on TV."
>
> Yes, because people sit on their ar*es and consume it passively. But if you want them to actually do something, it's not enough to just build it.
>

On 09/11/2015 01:59 PM, Bill Baxter via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> To be fair, wasn't the movie talking about dead baseball player ghosts
> coming? For people to take that example and apply it to other endeavors in
> life is a bit ridiculous.
>

That's pretty similar to how I felt about Doom3: People complained how "unrealistic" it was to not be able to duct tape the flashlight to the gun, but...For crap's sake, it's a game about a demon invasion from hell and one guy single-handedly holding them all off. Realism and believability were obviously never the point. :)

'Course, that game had other issues, but realism (or lack of) was never one of them.

> But maybe I'm misremembering. Saw it a long time ago.

Never saw it myself, but that's what I'd heard it was about.

On Saturday, 12 September 2015 at 14:25:46 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> That's pretty similar to how I felt about Doom3: People complained how "unrealistic" it was to not be able to duct tape the flashlight to the gun, but...For crap's sake, it's a game about a demon invasion from hell and one guy single-handedly holding them all off. Realism and believability were obviously never the point. :)
>
> 'Course, that game had other issues, but realism (or lack of) was never one of them.
>
>> But maybe I'm misremembering. Saw it a long time ago.
>
> Never saw it myself, but that's what I'd heard it was about.

It's funny, people are willing to suspend their disbelief for demons from hell, but not for the lack of a flashlight and duct tape. It's probably because it was an annoying game mechanic, and taping a flashlight to a gun is something so simple and mundane that you *can't* suspend your disbelief at Doom Guy being unable to find a way to use both at once somehow.

On 09/13/2015 08:51 AM, Meta wrote:
> It's funny, people are willing to suspend their disbelief for demons from hell, but not for the lack of a flashlight and duct tape. It's probably because it was an annoying game mechanic, and taping a flashlight to a gun is something so simple and mundane that you *can't* suspend your disbelief at Doom Guy being unable to find a way to use both at once somehow.

Have you ever tried taping 8 different flashlights to 8 different weapons ranging from a pistol to a badass BFG while carrying a light-tank-load of ammunition?  I'm not even talking about finding tapes in that demon-infested compound with those jammed office doors that once you open them an imp (in the best case) tries to plasma-whack you!

Cut the doom guy some slack!  We owe him our very existence!

:-)

-- 
Bahman Movaqar