On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:36 AM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
If you want to post to many NGs, you can always cross post. If you want your post accessible somewhere else (e.g. blog), you can always give a link to your post, just like I've done a while ago with the links to the Spirit discussions. It doesn't make sense to link to the code anyway without the context surrounding it.
Well, now that you mention it you can embed the gist snippet using HTML+JavaScript. :D
You can embed gist snippets in an email text post? That would be a new one on me. ;-)
LOL. :D I meant if you were putting it in a blog post or something like that. ;)
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
The only point I was making is that Github gists is an alternative means of doing it. Of course if the code fits in an email and is worth inlining, then that's alright I guess.
Not asking about alternates, rather asking *NOT* to do it at all actually. Inline if short enough, or attach it as a full compilable example.
So what would the consequence be for people who do post links to gists or codepad-like services? :D Anyway, I think if it's longevity of stuff on codepad is the problem, then not using codepad is one solution. Inlining and attachments are fine until you run into the attachment limit problem. I guess what I'm saying is "discouraging" someone from doing it is different from "banning" it. Unless there's a way for automatic transparent enforcement of that, I'm not really seeing the benefit.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
It only breaks down if you have more than a manageable number of lines of code to be considered "email friendly".
Hence the "or attach it" bit.
Yup.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
If the concern was longevity, as long as the user's github account is active and the gist has not been deleted, then it's just like anything else out there that's accessible via a link. :)
Not just longevity, but also searchability, remember, everything here is archived, it needs to all be searchable *in-context*. Links elsewhere, whether codepad or anything else awful like that, like gist, harm that in a number of ways.
Alright, I get the point. However I don't agree that it's as evil as it's being called out to be. It's the same problem when using tinyurl or bit.ly or even just "natural" link rot -- I don't see how it's a huge downside. If there's a downside like SEO friendliness, I think it's marginal enough to be acceptable. Just my thoughts though, not intending to represent others' ideas or positions. :) -- Dean Michael Berris cplusplus-soup.com | twitter.com/deanberris linkedin.com/in/mikhailberis | facebook.com/dean.berris | deanberris.com