|
Group 7; TL;DR.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Youtube covers a massively wide range of stuff, so I'm going to assume you are talking software development content rather than anything else.
For software tutorials, I hate videos. I have given up watching them entirely. (except Donald Knuths Christmas talks).
They just take too long and are too hard to navigate.
I guess, there are three specific use cases when I'll want explore content online:
1. I have a specific problem I want to solve. Example from yesterday - how do I pretty format numbers in javascript. Here, I want to find a quick to browse article, how-to, probably with some code snippets that I can steal and get back to my development. I don't want to watch a video of someone coding and explaining this. I can figure this out myself, but I'm going to copy and steal shamelessly rather than reinvent the wheel.
2. There is a library/language/framework/concept that I want to dig deeper into. Here, I'll go for written tutorials and actually work with it myself. (example from a couple of days ago - the lodash javascript library - quick web page, some data and start exploring the methods of interest while jumping around tutorials and documentation). If I found a video on this, it might spend the frist 5 minutes explaining basic data structures, apis, etc, etc. Too hard in a video to skip to the part I want. In an article, easy to jump to the bit of interest.
3. I'm browsing articles on code project. General knowledge improvement, and industry awareness. In 30 seconds, I can decide whether I want to read this article in more detail. Is the intro well written, scroll down, good images, quick look at the code snippets and article structure and I decide if it's worth continuing. 30 seconds into a video, I've had a tile, a presenter introduction, and acknowledgement of the sponsor, a plug for the channel and a request to upvote. Still no idea if the content is any good.
Sorry to be down on videos, they have their place for other things (DIY house/car/garden maintenance, etc), but not software.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm #5, but first a suggestion. If you want to do a channel, my personal impression is that software vids are a pile of steaming elephant poop. Never seen one that was useful, never seen one where the person making it
1) Knew anything about making videos.
And
2) Knew more than any of his audience about the subject he was covering.
I'm sure there are some, somewhere - but there is so much total cr@p that nobody can find it. And total dross gets upvoted and subscribed because ... well, I suspect money has changed hands ...
So if it's a software channel, probably forget it.
If it isn't, then watch people who do know how to make a video. I strongly recommend ThisOldTony who is a hobby machinist: The progression from "really dull" early vids to "really watchable" in the mid and later ones is worth observing, even if you have no interest in welding, turning, routing, filing, or biting your way through solid steel or aluminium. I own none of eh kit he does, and I'm never going to get any - but his enthusiasm and verve to entertain and inform means he's subscribed so I never miss a video. Work out what and how he makes a vid, and yours should be vastly better than if you set up a GoPro and start typing... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in Group #7, those who only use youtube for watching...- The occasional comedy clip.
- Clips linked to by other Lounge users.
- Masterchef Italia.
Other than that, I've got no use for it.
I wouldn't watch training on it, and I wouldn't create training for it.
And, believe it or not (99% 0f people wouldn't, apparently), I don't like "funny cat videos".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to find something other people like that you don't like never works. That's called a job.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
| #6
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
|
drunken prawns for everyone
after many otherwise intelligent sounding suggestions that achieved nothing the nice folks at Technet said the only solution was to low level format my hard disk then reinstall my signature. Sadly, this still didn't fix the issue!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poisson au vin 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but that killed people, so it's not really funny.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see how that's a problem; a shutdown doesn't cost much and it could've been easily prevented. A risc/profit analysis prolly prevented that. Sometimes you bet wrong.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. Sometimes quality in design is too expensive - initially. Too late you see how wrong you were. 
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been wrong in over twenty years.
And it was a choice made by the people who put money into it; they made a risc/profit analysis, and in their defence, environmental risc isn't a financial risc. So, NO PROBLEM THERE.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I haven't been wrong in over twenty years.
And it was a choice made by the people who put money into it; they made a risc/profit analysis, and in their defence, environmental risc isn't a financial risc. So, NO PROBLEM THERE.
Ummm you spelled "risk" wrong.
RISC describes a Reduced Instruction Set Computer.
It could be argued that "defence/defense" is wrong too (depends where you're from).
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
H.Brydon wrote: Ummm you spelled "risk" wrong.
My English teacher used to chide me for confusing "know" with "now".
I used to not now the difference, but it made some impact on conversations 
H.Brydon wrote: It could be argued that "defence/defense" is wrong too (depends where you're from).
She teaches English, not American. The first is what we should learn, the second is "an accident" and not even worth discussing.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that's alcohol abuse!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
boy, working on all that NFA lexer stuff made me forget how fast DFAs are.
Debugging my DFA lexer and doing some perf on it, and it's 10 times faster than lexly and now generates the tables almost as fast.
Performance-wise, my poor Pike virtual machine based tokenizer, cool as it is, is getting pounded into the dirt by good old boring, reliable DFA matching.
Rolex is nearly ready for a reboot, now supporting full unicode, with UTF-32 internally using the same old DFA algo as before, except sped up some.
But now I had to choose boring/fast over cool/slow and that makes me a little sad.
Even theoretically doing DFA conversion and then running it through lexly's VM is still twice as slow as just using rolex.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: boring/fast over cool/slow
It's code, not a lover. 
|
|
|
|
|
are you saying I'm too emotionally invested? HENGH?!! *raises eyebrow*
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
You wouldn't be good at what you do if you weren't emotionally invested, IMHO. 
|
|
|
|
|
Boring is underrated.
Boring is predictable and dependable. Most business owners like boring more than they first admit.
Would you prefer to invest your money into something boring or something cool? Don't think stocks, think about your time; that's an investment too, innit?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
all true, but it's not fun
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
