On 6/24/2022 6:57 PM, zjh wrote:
> `Marketers` are really `unimportant`. Good things will naturally be `used` by others!

I wish both of these statements are true. But they are not.

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 00:26:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 23:12:02 UTC, forkit wrote:
>
>>
>> But I'm struggling to see a day, where people in the D forums, sit around a fire together, and start singing kumbaya, in harmony with each other.
>>
>
> Then you've never been to DConf. That's metaphorically what we do, especially in the evenings when we gather for BeerConf, but also between the talks and during the Hackathon. I'm not saying everyone agrees all the time, but any debates that are had have a much, much different tone when they're face-to-face than they do in the forums.

So I've never been sure. Maybe that's because you never had one in Australia.

But I think I've watched every single video that's been published, since they first began. I've worked in teams (real and virtual) before too ;-)

I did specifically say the D 'forum' though.

When you're in person, even in person virtually, 'social dynamics' tend to get priortised. Much less so in online forums.

If only we were not 'autonomous existing objects', then there would be no tension whatsover.

On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 10:23:24 UTC, Jordan Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 09:48:21 UTC, forkit wrote:
>> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 09:41:46 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>>>
>>> Its not hard to stick to arguing facts. Just avoid things like calling people passive aggressive when they disagree with you.
>>>
>>
>> Lets compromise on that a little.
>>
>> When people are being passive-aggressive, I call them as being passive-aggresive.
>>
>> And when their not, I won't.
>>
>> How does that sound?
>
> That's not what you were doing. A large proportion of responses to your messages were reasonable. The proportion of your messages accusing people of being passive-aggressive/ignorant/gutless etc. is not.
>
> Jordan

I choose not to engage you any further on this, except to say, that yes, there was a definite tug-of-war between people with very firm views.

And my view remains very firm, as I'm sure is the case for the view of others.

At least it all resulted in something practical. That is, something you can test for yourself write now, in your code, if you choose to.

Or not, if you choose that.

On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 11:11:12 UTC, claptrap wrote:
> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 09:48:21 UTC, forkit wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Dont call people anything. If you want a respectful technical discusion avoid anything personal. Argue the facts of what they say not your emotional response to it.
>
> Which is exactly how i responded to you in the "adding a new design constraint thread" and your response was to label me passive aggressive. Seriously go back and read it.
>
> You dont even know what passive aggressive means. Me replying to other people saying things i knew would indirectly set you off was passive aggressive. Me replying to you directly and respectfully was not.
>
> Savy?

Ummm.. where do I begin...

I know...

https://forum.dlang.org/post/mrrwoltoqfohnidkjucd@forum.dlang.org

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 04:07:32 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 11:11:12 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 09:48:21 UTC, forkit wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Dont call people anything. If you want a respectful technical discusion avoid anything personal. Argue the facts of what they say not your emotional response to it.
>>
>> Which is exactly how i responded to you in the "adding a new design constraint thread" and your response was to label me passive aggressive. Seriously go back and read it.
>>
>> You dont even know what passive aggressive means. Me replying to other people saying things i knew would indirectly set you off was passive aggressive. Me replying to you directly and respectfully was not.
>>
>> Savy?
>
> Ummm.. where do I begin...
>
> I know...
>
> https://forum.dlang.org/post/mrrwoltoqfohnidkjucd@forum.dlang.org

Alright folks, please let's not get into a tit for tat here. The original post in this thread was phrased in broad terms, speaking to the community as a whole. It has since veered off into the personal. Please let's bring it back to the broader topic and stay away from calling out personal behavior, directly or indirectly. We should be able to have a civil discussion about civility.

And to be clear, I've replied directly to forkit's post, but I'm speaking to everyone. I'm going to delete any further posts in this thread that get personal.

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 05:22:54 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>

Umm.. isn't (essentially) calling people uncivil (the premise of the thread topic) kinda 'personal'?

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 07:37:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>
> If the tool is the hands down best for some specific purpose then yes, word of mouth is the best marketing when the product is exceptional.
>
> If it is one of many or bland then marketing becomes an issue.

Well, back in the 90s', when I was learning C++, my friend and I walked into the software store one day (yeah, no online back then), and the product we both decided on, was the product with the biggest box (i.e. the most books).

At that particular time, it was Borland C++ that had the biggest box, with the most books. So we settled on that.

Of course I never read them all.

If we were in the 90's still, I'd say that maybe D needs a bigger box.