I thought that this was a really good talk.
I found the speed of the talk refreshing and well-paced. However, I know that a number of people found it quite rapid. This is perhaps in part due to the fact that similar to the speaker, I'm also an American.
I think that 35-40 minutes is a good target length for this presentation.
Hi everyone, if you could please consider leaving specific feedback about what you feel could be improved. For example, "it's mediocre" is a fair assessment. However, it doesn't help me understand how that I could become a better speaker or how I could improve on this specific talk.
This talk exposes some of the ideas about how calculations are done in a context in which many people are likely not aware.
This sort of knowledge is important because it helps to give one perspective.
Did I walk away with any directly implementable tactics for my applications? No.
But, I did walk away with a renewed passion for systems and I find that my mental aesthetic has been augmented with an improved willingness to brave the wild world of engineering.
Inspiration to grow as an individual is very important. Thanks, Igor.
God Ben, I love you being yourself on stage. If you pace around less, it'd be easier to track your face. I really don't think that you should feel like you need to be mobile up there. Your personality works really well.
I had a blast in this workshop. The pace was just right. We coded along and were challenged to implement our own solutions. I felt emboldened to pursue a goal of mine to implement my own language from the ground up. Anthony and Igor were funny and relaxed and I really don't know what I'd like to see improve.
I have seen a lot of talks on this subject and I felt that this one had better code than most. However, I would have liked to see a little more focus on philosophy about how crud thinking makes it difficult to reason about applications for both the users and the developers.
This is another talk that I was genuinely interested in. But, I didn't know it until I got there. I loved learning more about how PHP works under the hood. I would actually happily watch an entire conference of talks like this.
I enjoyed the talk. Good content that made Event Sourcing feel accessible.
Perhaps a simple flowchart that shows the sequence in which things occur in the example could reduce some of the questions.
I think that explaining CQRS conceptually (source not necessary, I think) may help as well. (visualizations)
I thought that it was a very nice talk. It was simple, to the point. It expressed a lot of the unique ideas about the language in a way that was easy to understand.
Most talks are plagued with the fact that the speaker has trouble building a bridge between the current state of their knowledge on the subject and the audience's knowledge. In my experience, this holds doubly true for talks about programming languages.
I felt like Remon avoided this trap entirely. Well done, that.
I would have liked to see some more complex code examples at the end, just to get a feel for how it all went together. I wouldn't have liked a long / slow play-by-play. But, it would have helped me get a bit of a better feel for the language.
In addition, I think that a bit more time could have been spent explaining good / bad use-cases for Go.
All in all, it was a useful talk that was competently delivered.
In response to the comment that "Dries ignored the organizer's pleas to come to an end."
I am the organizer and I would like to take full responsibility.
I made a mistake and Dries handled it the right way. I only realized this fact afterwards. I'm very thankful that Dries handled my interruption in the way that he did. He kept a relatively small mistake from becoming a larger one. I'm sorry for the mistake, Dries.
The talk was what I wanted for the program and I look forward to seeing more from you.
I have an interest in this sort of content, although my knowledge is very rudimentary.
I felt like a little more context for everything and a bit more 'stair stepping' the knowledge would have been helpful.
That said, I had some insights about the subject while watching the talk and while discussing it afterwards that were quite pleasant.
Please keep giving this kind of talk. If more conferences had this kind of content, I would attend more conferences. However, consider connecting the audience a bit more to the material by building up necessary concepts first before diving in. For example, a more deliberate exploration of the code examples and how everything fits together.
I liked learning about microKanren and the like. As always, these sort of topics bring me pleasure. However, I would have liked to see a little less history (I still like the history, but time is short) and a bit more deliberate explanation of some of the more mathematic concepts (so that I could walk away with a few more mathematic concepts).