zlacker

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.

>>fenoma+(OP)
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.

>>kgwgk+h1
> 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".

>>fenoma+M6
Fine, I see how it can mean that. But even reading it in context I don’t think that “the implication” was obvious. Of course, a talk based of unfulfilled promises can be irritating. It’s a good thing to avoid. No disagreement on that.