← Back to context

Comment by kgwgk

7 years ago

I understood that the attendance’s irritarion and the “acceptance of your talk may have been implicitly preconditioned on the attendees being able to benefit from the code/library/project in question" would also apply to someone else’s talks. But I see how the availability aspect could be part of his talk, or is expected because of who he is. If it’s about himself/his talks in particular another option would be to change the expectations.

I think you're over-parsing this. The document you linked is basically an apology - the guy's saying "if you came to this repo looking for the code for that talk I gave, it's not here, and sorry about that, and here's why I regret that and how I'll avoid repeating my mistake". Considered in context, it's clearly not a "here's what I think other people ought to do" kind of document.

  • I agree, but the “people find presentations about code or libaries for which the source is not available irritating” seems to be a general statement.

    I don’t see a problem with talks that show code (to support whatever the talk is about) without giving it away.

    • > the “people find presentations about code or libaries for which the source is not available irritating” seems to be a general statement.

      Read the whole thing in context. He's apologizing for jumping the gun - for giving a talk about a library he intended to release, before it was ready. The implication is that it was probably a "hey try this library!" kind of talk, that has little value to the audience without the code, so he's saying he should have waited.

      Giving talks about closed code that will never be released is separate from all that, and clearly not what he's talking about. Hence the exception, "case studies and such".

      1 reply →