Offtopic posts don't belong to /prog/ they should be in /lounge/ or /vip/.
/prog/ should be about programming and things strongly related to programming. Mods are doing the right thing by deleting these shitthreads.
P.S. I'm not a mod.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 4:03
>>7
Just curious. What do you think of A pack of wild niggers, or YOU FUQIN ANGERED AN EXPERT PROGRAMMER, or ENTERPRISE, or prog snake? These aren't really programming related, yet they've been a unique part of /prog/ for like 5 years now.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 4:42
>>8
I'm not >>7-san, but I'll post anyway because I can. Perhaps a good analogy would be acronyms. ENTERPRISE is like an acronym that expands to ``A stereotypically over-engineered situation full of boilerplate.'' or ``Something which is extremely overvalued'' or the like. That makes sense, it's a description that's often evoked when talking about things that are programming related. If used correctly, it can be no more out-of-place than writing K&R to refer to their classic text. `A pack of wild niggers' doesn't really expand that way. Unique part of /prog/ or not, it has no real excuse for being here.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 4:53
>>9
But it's been here longer that this new wave of /prog/ is for programming as been. In my opinion if at least one person wants it here, then it should stay. Otherwise, the volumes of /prog/ since 2004 will need to be wiped out when its content goes out of date, which goes against another principle of this board, that posts are permanent and can always be looked back on far into the future.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 4:58
going on, the excuse for it being here was that once upon a time someone here wrote it in it's form for the first time on this board. And it was enjoyed and reused by a lot of people that have used this board. They've made it a part of this by that simple demand. If it doesn't belong at it's original place of creation, then where does it belong? And how is the range of what is and isn't allowed defined? Who gets to make these decisions on allowed content?
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 5:09
>>8
1.Do you start threads with "A pack of wild %s"? Do you feel these threads are about programming?
2.Replying to a thread with the above is fine, but what if the thread become an endless variation of "A pack of wild %s" plus some memes. Instead of thread being somewhat useful its just a meme contest(like on reddit, puns and novelty accounts replying to a non-funny topic).
There should be middle ground between "purely memetic, entertaining" and "purely technical, boring" /prog/ and that means #1 has to go and #2 should follow if its completely infested by memes/copypasta. Its like adding(posting) too much or too little salt(memes) to your diet(culture).
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 5:19
/prog/ is self-aware and will reroute itself around censorship.
>>8,10
If I had the power to remove those threads five years ago, I would have done it. The fact remains, they are not programming, not even with the most tenuous of excuses. This thread isn't programming either.
>>11
If one can make a good connection about promoting or improving the art of programming amongst the general populous, then it's programming relating. The endless pronunciation threads, drugs and jew spam does not promote programming.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 5:46
>>16
it doesnt matter, it is now /prog/-worthy material and is customary. so fuck off if you dont like it.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 5:49
>>12
There were people starting threads here with "A pack of wild %s" long before you came here bitching about the lack of "programming".
Prog obtains the equilibrium. Interesting content has been deleted because it was posted under a thread with a crappy subject.
>>17 If it doesn't belong at it's original place of creation, then where does it belong? And how is the range of what is and isn't allowed defined? Who gets to make these decisions on allowed content?
It's /prog/ worthy because it was spammed here by some shitposters? I could spam advocation for MLP here everyday three times a day. According to your logic, MLP would possibly become worthy /prog/.
>>22,23
I have no idea of what you're trying to communicate. Programming isn't about wikipedia.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 6:13
>>24
You must still be a student. Once you get to a certain point, you'll find that programming isn't all that interesting. These things that you want to fill prog with, they are mere instruction manuals. Things that you have to think about at work. Whatever man. If you want this shit on prog, start threads with them as the subject. Don't be surprised if you get no helpful replies.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 6:23
Reddit's /r/programming community has more quality posts and active posters. Some of us visit it daily. /prog/ compared to it is a backwater town filled with retards. So, if you ask "Do you want /prog/ to be like /r/programming?!" its like a frat boy complaining about "these fuckin' nerds and their wikeepeedia"
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 6:25
>>26
I have a really grand solution. Go back there!
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 6:28
>>26
And by the way, I am not complaining about them and their wikipedia. I'm complaining about a website consisting of people paraphrasing (badly) information that I could otherwise just look up on wikipedia. Get it straight.
I find it frustrating, that even though you can't respond to >>28, you're still going to go maintaining the same viewpoint.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 6:45
>>28
You're saying wikipedia shouldn't be referenced?
Like it or not, wikipedia is a immense source of "trusted knowledge" and quoting it adds weight to your argument or position. If a post has a wikipedia references and it relevant, it will probably get upvoted for providing useful information(unlike /prog/ which responds with irrational loathing for wikipedia).
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 6:49
>>30
I'm not saying anything about what any should do with or without wikipedia. But that I am not interested in reading an attempted re-invention of it. I like wikipedia as it is, where information is entered and then subjected to review. I wouldn't go to a discussion forum to find the sort of information that I can get at wikipedia. It's like you've been purposefully misinterpreting what I've been saying for 3 posts now.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 6:55
>>31
>I wouldn't go to a discussion forum to find the sort of information that I can get at wikipedia.
Then why are you on /prog/? There isn't a single (programming) thread that could NOT be answered by searching wikipedia or replaced with few paragraphs from wikipedia.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 6:55
wikipedia is a immense source of "trusted knowledge" and quoting it adds weight to your argument or position
lol, people actually think that?
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-25 7:03
>>32
Because unlike you, I actually like /prog/, and it gives me something that I can't get at wikipedia. I get to show why if it isn't LISP it's crap, and how LISP is shit. Why seeples is worse than see and I read my SICP. I can bash PHP while being an enterprise code monkey. Yes, I actually like doing these things. And guess what, I can't do it anywhere else on the internet.
Meanwhile, I continue to browse sites like wikipedia when I want to look things up. Is this so hard to understand?
>>33
>lol, people actually think that?
Number of people who trust wikipedia:Hundreds of millions at least, most internet users.
Number of people who don't trust wikipedia:thousands of academics/elitists.
So, the answer is "people do actually think like that" and the opposite view is a narrow minority.
Anyways, I need to go now. We'll have to continue this talk later. But it is likely the talk. We're breaking up. I don't care how many years I've sort of known you by talking to you anonymously. It's over, understand?
>>7
Just because you can spam something does not mean it is part of /prog/'s culture. The fact is, a small subset of /prog/'s readers are autistic otaku retards that spammed and continue to spam /prog/ trying to force their own memes. Moderation is acceptable by me because it would end those retards' attempts. It would not stop /prog/ from creating new memes.