On Monday, 5 August 2013 at 19:44:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Throwing code up on github isn't good enough. Expecting people to read the source code to figure out who/what/where/etc is never going to work.

No pun intendended, but this is also why I fought for a better changelog at that time. Expecting users to read tons of bugzilla entries is as unrealistic at this.

On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 08:12:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> DrDobbs has always been good to me and my efforts, even in the 1980s. The editors, first Jon Erickson and now Andrew Binstock, are a pleasure to work with. DrDobbs is a great way to reach a wider programming audience.

How does it work, publishing an article there?

On 8/6/2013 5:32 AM, "Luís Marques" <luismarques@gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 08:12:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> DrDobbs has always been good to me and my efforts, even in the 1980s. The
>> editors, first Jon Erickson and now Andrew Binstock, are a pleasure to work
>> with. DrDobbs is a great way to reach a wider programming audience.
>
> How does it work, publishing an article there?

Contact the editor, Andrew Binstock, and email him your article.

On 2013-08-06 17:13:19 +0000, Walter Bright said:

> On 8/6/2013 5:32 AM, "Luís Marques" <luismarques@gmail.com>" wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 08:12:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> DrDobbs has always been good to me and my efforts, even in the 1980s. The
>>> editors, first Jon Erickson and now Andrew Binstock, are a pleasure to work
>>> with. DrDobbs is a great way to reach a wider programming audience.
>> 
>> How does it work, publishing an article there?
> 
> Contact the editor, Andrew Binstock, and email him your article.

Walter, at best you may want to introduce Luis to Andrew. A little social game goes a long way.

Andrei

On Monday, 5 August 2013 at 19:44:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> ...
> I know that people often are reluctant to promote their own stuff because they feel it's immodest. All I can say is get over it! Look at Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, Gene Simmons, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, etc. None of them are/were remotely shy about promotion.

I don't think you should just compare programmers/developers with entrepreneurs like you did. Of course there are programmers who market/promote their own software, but most don't or at least not like an entrepreneur would do.

How many bricks Donald Trump helped to put on his buildings? None, despite he has made a great fortune and career in construction, he is Bachelor of Science in Economics.

Another example is Steve Jobs, how many games he promoted at Atari? None, on the other hand he promoted the first Apple Computer, but who built that machine was the by the other Steve.

Matheus.

On 8/6/2013 4:28 PM, MattCoder wrote:
> Another example is Steve Jobs, how many games he promoted at Atari? None, on the
> other hand he promoted the first Apple Computer, but who built that machine was
> the by the other Steve.

Few of us are lucky enough to have a Steve Jobs to promote what we do.

Lots of very talented people at the time were designing and building homebrew computers. (Hell, even *I* made one in 1978, and I'm not even an EE!) They all went nowhere and are forgotten today. The only reason we remember Woz and his homebrew computer is because of Steve Jobs.

From what I gather, and I know someone who attended those meetings of the Homebrew Club, without Jobs Woz would have made a few computers, given them out to his friends, and moved on to something else.

It simply isn't enough to create a great product.

(Back in the early days of my compiler, I partnered with John Haggins who had a knack for promotion and made Zortech a success.)

On 8/6/2013 3:24 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2013-08-06 17:13:19 +0000, Walter Bright said:
>
>> On 8/6/2013 5:32 AM, "Luís Marques" <luismarques@gmail.com>" wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 08:12:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> DrDobbs has always been good to me and my efforts, even in the 1980s. The
>>>> editors, first Jon Erickson and now Andrew Binstock, are a pleasure to work
>>>> with. DrDobbs is a great way to reach a wider programming audience.
>>>
>>> How does it work, publishing an article there?
>>
>> Contact the editor, Andrew Binstock, and email him your article.
>
> Walter, at best you may want to introduce Luis to Andrew. A little social game
> goes a long way.

If anyone has an article ready and wants to publish it in DDJ, I'd be happy to arrange an introduction.

On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 23:28:44 UTC, MattCoder wrote:
>
> I don't think you should just compare programmers/developers with entrepreneurs like you did. Of course there are programmers who market/promote their own software, but most don't or at least not like an entrepreneur would do.
>
Maybe those weren't great examples, but the underlying message is definitely true.  It's pretty clear at this point that promotion is an important part of going indie with games; look at Introversion, Dejobaan, Gaslamp, Positech, Wolfire, and whatever Jon Blow calls his outfit.  And how many years was Phil Fish writing about Fez?  For the tools side, Adam Saltsman with flixel and Nicolas Cannasse with Haxe are decent examples.

Or Mozilla.  Ooh man, Mozilla is a good one.  How popular do you think Firefox would be without the concentrated campaign to "take back the web" and all that?

Writing about your stuff and telling people about your stuff is just super important (even if doing it kind of sucks).

-Wyatt

On Wednesday, 7 August 2013 at 02:27:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/6/2013 4:28 PM, MattCoder wrote:
> It simply isn't enough to create a great product.

I did try. At my job. Basically, answers that I received were like: "it's unfinished." (they meant language is changing and tools are immature)

I do not know if it is helpful of not, or if it is true or not.

But these were the answers that I received.

What I perceived: language should state on those several ambiguous issues (@property was quoted, complex numbers) and tools should get some maturity (the .so thing for one).

On Wednesday, 7 August 2013 at 14:12:32 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 August 2013 at 02:27:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 8/6/2013 4:28 PM, MattCoder wrote:
>> It simply isn't enough to create a great product.
>
> I did try. At my job. Basically, answers that I received were like: "it's unfinished." (they meant language is changing and tools are immature)
>
> I do not know if it is helpful of not, or if it is true or not.
>
> But these were the answers that I received.
>
> What I perceived: language should state on those several ambiguous issues (@property was quoted, complex numbers) and tools should get some maturity (the .so thing for one).

Yea, I don't like how you have to write properties in D. I usually write them like this:
@property {
    int myNum() {
        return _myNum;
    }
    void myNum(int value) {
        _myNum = value;
    }
}

I saw that in the D conf it was stated that @property will be changed? I was wondering if there is any progress on that and how will the new properties look like? Are they going to be replaced by templates or something else? Has anyone written his own property generators?