It seems the forums are picking up a bit with newer people.

I suggest that subforums be used for specific topics or a tag based system like stack overflow. At some point it will get out of control and have to be changed... better not wait until that happens.

E.g., tagging could have stuff like

"Interfacing", "Java", "DLL"

or one can have subforums... tagging is nicer because it allows easier overlapping of subject matter rather than many independent sub-forums. (e.g., interfacing and java sub-forums confuse the issue since the above example actually requires both)

I know that nntp might be an issue, one could possibly use something like ##interfacing ##Java ##DLL at the end of the subject of a post that remains compatible but newer software can keep track of all the posts and allow searching using tags.

Better yet, create some bidirectional middleman between stack exchange and the D forums/nntp.

e.g., it will keep track and adapt D forum posts into a stack exchange post and vice versa.

Alternatively, and IMO the best way, simply drop backwards compatibility with the newsgroups and get out of the dark ages. If D wants to represent the future it shouldn't use neanderthal technologies, specially as a form of communication. We do not communicate in grunts because it is inefficient and there are better ways(english, for example... or any modern natural language), and therefor, we shouldn't use nntp as a form of communication when there are better ways.

[I'm not advocating the full logical conclusion but something a bit more reasonable than 'living in the dark ages(taking into account computer years ;) )]

On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 02:13:13 UTC, Morbid.Obesity wrote:
> I suggest that subforums be used for specific topics or a tag based system like stack overflow.

I think we should just use stack overflow for that. A forum is kinda chatty and not that great for searching anyway - even if you find something, there might be fifty posts between question and answer. The SO model tries to avoid that and I think we might as well just use it.

Remember we can ask and answer our own questions on SO too, so we could archive things there with that method.

On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 02:31:15 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 02:13:13 UTC, Morbid.Obesity wrote:
>> I suggest that subforums be used for specific topics or a tag based system like stack overflow.
>
> I think we should just use stack overflow for that. A forum is kinda chatty and not that great for searching anyway - even if you find something, there might be fifty posts between question and answer. The SO model tries to avoid that and I think we might as well just use it.
>
> Remember we can ask and answer our own questions on SO too, so we could archive things there with that method.

Yes, I think the SO works, D forums comes up about half way. Again, D forums may work right now but at some point they won't assuming D takes off. The benefit of switching not, rather than later is that it will make the later, sooner.

On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 02:13:13 UTC, Morbid.Obesity wrote:
> It seems the forums are picking up a bit with newer people.
>
> I suggest that subforums be used for specific topics or a tag based system like stack overflow.

You mean the "Learn" forum? Because that form of discussion is only applicable there, and not for general discussion.

> At some point it will get out of control and have to be changed... better not wait until that happens.

I don't know what you mean by this. I don't see how a simple increase in users and activity would invalidate the current format.

> I know that nntp might be an issue, one could possibly use something like ##interfacing ##Java ##DLL at the end of the subject of a post that remains compatible but newer software can keep track of all the posts and allow searching using tags.

I don't see what considerable advantage would be provided by tagging threads. Impossibility of editing will be another difficulty.

> Better yet, create some bidirectional middleman between stack exchange and the D forums/nntp.

I don't see what this would achieve.

> Alternatively, and IMO the best way, simply drop backwards compatibility with the newsgroups and get out of the dark ages.

Again, you mean just the "Learn" forum?

I'm biased, but generally speaking I think we're in a much better place than most other programming language communities.

For example, Rust mainly uses GitHub issues, Go uses Google Groups, Nim uses a (very simple) custom forum, many other have just mailing lists or no official forums.

We have:

- Access via NNTP, mailing lists, or web interface with 4 different view modes
- Threading
- Mobile-friendly view (apparently not perfect but much better than nothing)
- Keyboard navigation
- Fast load speeds
- Open-source, self-hosted solution, no dependency on 3rd-parties

I think we have many advantages and few disadvantages compared to other

> If D wants to represent the future it shouldn't use neanderthal technologies, specially as a form of communication. We do not communicate in grunts because it is inefficient and there are better ways(english, for example... or any modern natural language), and therefor, we shouldn't use nntp as a form of communication when there are better ways.
>
> [I'm not advocating the full logical conclusion but something a bit more reasonable than 'living in the dark ages(taking into account computer years ;) )]

Old technologies are not inherently worse. On the contrary, a technology's age may show its maturity and widespread support - consider the vast number of NNTP and mail clients you can get for any platform and operating system, all of which can be used to access this forum.

On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 03:39:34 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 02:13:13 UTC, Morbid.Obesity wrote:
>> It seems the forums are picking up a bit with newer people.
>>
>> I suggest that subforums be used for specific topics or a tag based system like stack overflow.
>
> You mean the "Learn" forum? Because that form of discussion is only applicable there, and not for general discussion.
>
>> At some point it will get out of control and have to be changed... better not wait until that happens.
>
> I don't know what you mean by this. I don't see how a simple increase in users and activity would invalidate the current format.
>
>> I know that nntp might be an issue, one could possibly use something like ##interfacing ##Java ##DLL at the end of the subject of a post that remains compatible but newer software can keep track of all the posts and allow searching using tags.
>
> I don't see what considerable advantage would be provided by tagging threads. Impossibility of editing will be another difficulty.
>
>> Better yet, create some bidirectional middleman between stack exchange and the D forums/nntp.
>
> I don't see what this would achieve.
>
>> Alternatively, and IMO the best way, simply drop backwards compatibility with the newsgroups and get out of the dark ages.
>
> Again, you mean just the "Learn" forum?
>
> I'm biased, but generally speaking I think we're in a much better place than most other programming language communities.
>
> For example, Rust mainly uses GitHub issues, Go uses Google Groups, Nim uses a (very simple) custom forum, many other have just mailing lists or no official forums.
>
> We have:
>
> - Access via NNTP, mailing lists, or web interface with 4 different view modes
> - Threading
> - Mobile-friendly view (apparently not perfect but much better than nothing)
> - Keyboard navigation
> - Fast load speeds
> - Open-source, self-hosted solution, no dependency on 3rd-parties
>
> I think we have many advantages and few disadvantages compared to other
>
>> If D wants to represent the future it shouldn't use neanderthal technologies, specially as a form of communication. We do not communicate in grunts because it is inefficient and there are better ways(english, for example... or any modern natural language), and therefor, we shouldn't use nntp as a form of communication when there are better ways.
>>
>> [I'm not advocating the full logical conclusion but something a bit more reasonable than 'living in the dark ages(taking into account computer years ;) )]
>
> Old technologies are not inherently worse. On the contrary, a technology's age may show its maturity and widespread support - consider the vast number of NNTP and mail clients you can get for any platform and operating system, all of which can be used to access this forum.

Come on, I know you do have to think much but at least try! A 90 your old woman is "mature" but how many 19 year old men are chasing after them?

Your last comment is the same as "I like to use stones to wipe my butt!, If it was good enough for the cavemen and seeing they probably did it for thousands of years until they realized leafs could be used, then surely it is more developed then anything recent like toilet paper!!!".

Simply put, the flaw in your logic is that new technology is not created in a vacuum, it is based on the "old way" where people have **learned** from there past mistakes.

Unfortunately your mentality is what prevents progress rather than creates it. I suppose not a bad thing, balance is important. Just realize I'm on the other end as you. I'd rather be a super human rather than a caveman. Not just because of the rock/toilet paper issue.

Again, with a mentality such as yours, how do you ever except to progress? This is a serious question, I can't ever see how it could get us where we are at(which may not be that great, but if it's better than where we were then surely it is due to technology. (using the stone was the first step, the left the second, and toilet paper the third. The bidet could be the fourth... Of course, super humans will have learned to absorb all fecal matter through a specifically evolved pouch that acts as a furnace. Only gas will be a problem, but I'm sure it will be only a matter of time before someone, not like you, figures out a solution for it.

Progress friend, that is what you need!

On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 03:55:49 UTC, Morbid.Obesity wrote:
> Progress friend, that is what you need!

You've completely misunderstood my argument. I did not mean "old > new", I meant that it doesn't matter if something is old or new, it should be judged on its own merits. Your entire reply is about "new > old" (but full of allegories and no actual arguments concerning the topic at hand).

I do not wish to get into a sentimental argument hinging on metaphors and allegories. If you do not wish to discuss factual arguments, then there is nothing to debate.

On 18/06/2015 3:55 p.m., Morbid.Obesity wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 03:39:34 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 02:13:13 UTC, Morbid.Obesity wrote:
>>> It seems the forums are picking up a bit with newer people.
>>>
>>> I suggest that subforums be used for specific topics or a tag based
>>> system like stack overflow.
>>
>> You mean the "Learn" forum? Because that form of discussion is only
>> applicable there, and not for general discussion.
>>
>>> At some point it will get out of control and have to be changed...
>>> better not wait until that happens.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by this. I don't see how a simple increase
>> in users and activity would invalidate the current format.
>>
>>> I know that nntp might be an issue, one could possibly use something
>>> like ##interfacing ##Java ##DLL at the end of the subject of a post
>>> that remains compatible but newer software can keep track of all the
>>> posts and allow searching using tags.
>>
>> I don't see what considerable advantage would be provided by tagging
>> threads. Impossibility of editing will be another difficulty.
>>
>>> Better yet, create some bidirectional middleman between stack
>>> exchange and the D forums/nntp.
>>
>> I don't see what this would achieve.
>>
>>> Alternatively, and IMO the best way, simply drop backwards
>>> compatibility with the newsgroups and get out of the dark ages.
>>
>> Again, you mean just the "Learn" forum?
>>
>> I'm biased, but generally speaking I think we're in a much better
>> place than most other programming language communities.
>>
>> For example, Rust mainly uses GitHub issues, Go uses Google Groups,
>> Nim uses a (very simple) custom forum, many other have just mailing
>> lists or no official forums.
>>
>> We have:
>>
>> - Access via NNTP, mailing lists, or web interface with 4 different
>> view modes
>> - Threading
>> - Mobile-friendly view (apparently not perfect but much better than
>> nothing)
>> - Keyboard navigation
>> - Fast load speeds
>> - Open-source, self-hosted solution, no dependency on 3rd-parties
>>
>> I think we have many advantages and few disadvantages compared to other
>>
>>> If D wants to represent the future it shouldn't use neanderthal
>>> technologies, specially as a form of communication. We do not
>>> communicate in grunts because it is inefficient and there are better
>>> ways(english, for example... or any modern natural language), and
>>> therefor, we shouldn't use nntp as a form of communication when there
>>> are better ways.
>>>
>>> [I'm not advocating the full logical conclusion but something a bit
>>> more reasonable than 'living in the dark ages(taking into account
>>> computer years ;) )]
>>
>> Old technologies are not inherently worse. On the contrary, a
>> technology's age may show its maturity and widespread support -
>> consider the vast number of NNTP and mail clients you can get for any
>> platform and operating system, all of which can be used to access this
>> forum.
>
> Come on, I know you do have to think much but at least try! A 90 your
> old woman is "mature" but how many 19 year old men are chasing after them?
>
> Your last comment is the same as "I like to use stones to wipe my butt!,
> If it was good enough for the cavemen and seeing they probably did it
> for thousands of years until they realized leafs could be used, then
> surely it is more developed then anything recent like toilet paper!!!".
>
> Simply put, the flaw in your logic is that new technology is not created
> in a vacuum, it is based on the "old way" where people have **learned**
> from there past mistakes.
>
> Unfortunately your mentality is what prevents progress rather than
> creates it. I suppose not a bad thing, balance is important. Just
> realize I'm on the other end as you. I'd rather be a super human rather
> than a caveman. Not just because of the rock/toilet paper issue.
>
> Again, with a mentality such as yours, how do you ever except to
> progress? This is a serious question, I can't ever see how it could get
> us where we are at(which may not be that great, but if it's better than
> where we were then surely it is due to technology. (using the stone was
> the first step, the left the second, and toilet paper the third. The
> bidet could be the fourth... Of course, super humans will have learned
> to absorb all fecal matter through a specifically evolved pouch that
> acts as a furnace. Only gas will be a problem, but I'm sure it will be
> only a matter of time before someone, not like you, figures out a
> solution for it.
>
> Progress friend, that is what you need!

Actually I'm in agreement with Vladimir. NNTP as a backend system works rather well. And personally I was quite surprised at this.
No, we could easily add tags just prepend them as:

[GUI][Serialization] Help!!!! cannot serialize widgets data to disk

Really its just the web interface that needs to support it. NNTP clients will be more then happy to just search for "[GUI]".

On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 04:01:42 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> Actually I'm in agreement with Vladimir. NNTP as a backend system works rather well. And personally I was quite surprised at this.
> No, we could easily add tags just prepend them as:
>
> [GUI][Serialization] Help!!!! cannot serialize widgets data to disk
>
> Really its just the web interface that needs to support it. NNTP clients will be more then happy to just search for "[GUI]".

While I access this newsgroup exclusively through the web and do not use the NNTP/email interfaces at all and agree that those backends are unnecessarily limiting the web forum, I agree with Vlad and Rikki that an old technology is not necessarily inferior.  Given the crap that's often created with new tech, it seems like people do not learn from the old tech at all.

I agree with Rikki that it'd be better to add features to the web forum in a backward-compatible way, such as putting tag names in the titles or using Markdown for the forum's markup, which is perfectly readable in email.

btw, loving the new "Save and preview" button! :)

On 18/06/2015 4:25 p.m., Joakim wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 04:01:42 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>> Actually I'm in agreement with Vladimir. NNTP as a backend system
>> works rather well. And personally I was quite surprised at this.
>> No, we could easily add tags just prepend them as:
>>
>> [GUI][Serialization] Help!!!! cannot serialize widgets data to disk
>>
>> Really its just the web interface that needs to support it. NNTP
>> clients will be more then happy to just search for "[GUI]".
>
> While I access this newsgroup exclusively through the web and do not use
> the NNTP/email interfaces at all and agree that those backends are
> unnecessarily limiting the web forum, I agree with Vlad and Rikki that
> an old technology is not necessarily inferior.  Given the crap that's
> often created with new tech, it seems like people do not learn from the
> old tech at all.
>
> I agree with Rikki that it'd be better to add features to the web forum
> in a backward-compatible way, such as putting tag names in the titles or
> using Markdown for the forum's markup, which is perfectly readable in
> email.

We're already doing it. Why not just make it easier? Also makes posts like this a thing of the past.

> btw, loving the new "Save and preview" button! :)

On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 04:01:42 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> Actually I'm in agreement with Vladimir. NNTP as a backend system works rather well. And personally I was quite surprised at this.

BTW, here's a quick chart I made of how people post to this forum:
http://dump.thecybershadow.net/fd29290682da8888489542fc3dc92409/00000179.png

Although more than half of all posts come from the web interface, about 40% use other methods.