Does anyone want to do a "watch party" of LiveProg tomorrow? I'm planning to watch many/most of the sessions, and it could be cool to hang out in some space while we watch (Zoom, Slack, Discord, whatever) in order to back-channel and chat between events.

I basically miss the "hallway track" for online events like this. 😜

Does anyone want to do a "watch party" of LiveProg tomorrow? I'm planning to watch many/most of the sessions, and it could be cool to hang out in some space while we watch (Zoom, Slack, Discord, whatever) in order to back-channel and chat between events.

I basically miss the "hallway track" for online events like this. 😜

Do you all know if the talks will eventually be posted online for the general public?

I'd be interested in this @Jess Martin. I have meetings until 1pm EST, but the workshop sounds amazing!

@David Brooks Cool! Looks like there's a Discord server where some backchannel may happen?

Hmmm I'm not aware of any Discord server. Do you have a link @Jess Martin?

@David Brooks did you register? the invite should be in your email.

Ah, I see. I thought maybe you'd be streaming the sessions that you'd be watching. I am not registered myself. @Jess Martin

@David Brooks ah, gotcha 😞

So I can’t understand is it free to watch or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srE0WgP3JYE&ab_channel=ACMSIGPLAN - Zurich B stream is available publicly, is it the same for Zurich F stream where Live Prog stream is supposed to be broadcasted? If so - does anyone have a link (in case it’s actually free of charge). Thanks!

I'm not a chair, but I am speaking too, at the shared session between HATRA and LIVE

Looks like I'd need to register and pay $215 to watch this... and given that I could only attend the first two presentations because I am time zone challenged, I won't.

Joining and presenting as well, see you there ✌

Konrad Hinsen yah, it's not cheap 😞

I will post a link to a rehearsal version of the talk after I give it

Glad several members of this community seem to be speaking at the conf. I hope to be able to see the talks online at some point in the future

@Eric Gade it says on the site that they will "try" to post the talks online afterwards. Not sure what that means, but it sounds like posting online is the plan.

If anyone else is watching LiveProg, I'm hanging out 👉 in here👈 all day, taking notes live, chatting during breaks, etc (this is an experimental tool for groups working together similar to Sprout.place).

I'm also going to be tweeting some thoughts during the event to this twitter thread.

If anyone else is watching LiveProg, I'm hanging out 👉 in here👈 all day, taking notes live, chatting during breaks, etc (this is an experimental tool for groups working together similar to Sprout.place).

I'm also going to be tweeting some thoughts during the event to this twitter thread.

oh nice! you should come say hi some time today 🙂

I'll do that! thanks 🙂

Thanks for all those links, they are great for catching up!

This was a great talk, and the system (which I hadn't heard of before) seems quite compelling

https://twitter.com/11c634c4443b/status/1451201714976030720

For the record I'm actually not a huge fan of documentation in comments or explanation in comments (how or why), and I prefer outside documentation if possible, and why in commit messages and/or change logs so a explanation can be tied to the code at a specific point in time, but I'm also a comment pragmatist . I also like links, diagrams and pseudo code or higher level code to explain hard to read sections of code (mostly math heavy stuff, or SIMD optimized, etc.)

Pretty strongly against comments that explain obvious code and definitely against out of date or incorrect (lying) comments

wow this epic

If I write a comment like that my team probably will give in the code review a comment: write this doc on confluence (and no one never will read the doc).

https://twitter.com/Welt_schmerz_/status/1451358249454800897

Any others anyone can spot? I'm actually more interested in the bunny trail of people killing this stuff.

I’ve made a few comments like this in readme’s and in code comments before. I am a big fan of long comments in codebases about why something exists or ways in which it could be improved. Big fan of explanatory commit messages, providing context around the history of things, and the avenues tried and discarded.

I used to not feel this way. But I’m really not sure now that I understand why. I would have probably said things like comments can be incorrect and/or misleading. But I guess I actually find that fact useful, rather than harmful. If the author thought their code did one thing and it actually did another, knowing that is good for me. Or if the code has changed its purpose overtime, I can discover that via that comment.

As I’ve had to fix more and more code, learning the history and purpose of the code is incredibly useful. Having to infer that san-comments is much harder. (It goes without saying that I don’t mean comments like “set x to 2”)

I am emphatically anti-external documentation. I think that is the single greatest way to make the documentation 1) not written 2) not read and 3) not helpful. External documentation means I have to know that I need to know something. When I’m reading code, why would I expect there to be something in a totally separate context telling me about this code?

(Linking is not and answer. I can’t how many times I’ve read “Please see CEH1282 for more explanation” just to find just to find out that CEH was the project management tool that the company got rid of 6 years ago.)

If you want to make these sorts of diagrams and are on the mac, definitely recommend https://monodraw.helftone.com/

Is "internal" vs. "external" the best way to discuss documentation? Elsewhere in this community, people like to criticize that we store code in text files. Isn't that the more fundamental issue? That files( and the tools that process them) guide how we structure code and documentation? I think that the ideas from literate programming (and later computational notebooks) are more useful, even though the tools and techniques from this space are far from mature yet.

In the beforetimes, comments like this were more common. There's even an emacs mode for drawing them: http://www.lysator.liu.se/~tab/artist/

Internal vs external seems a decent distinction to me. The whole point of comments is they are unavoidably attached to a particular piece of code. Clearly external documentation is lacking something, as it always existed and yet people developed this practice of annotating the code in-place.

For me the more fundamental distinction is documentation that guides to the code vs. documentation that answers questions raised by the code. The latter is what I would expect to find "close" to the code, e.g. in the form of comments. Guiding documentation can easily refer to many places in the code, so you can't really put it inside the same file.