4 ms·

> I find it pretentious that anybody could consider the following features "having fun while pretending to communicate" straw-man argument. Nobody considers th

> I find it pretentious that anybody could consider the following features "having fun while pretending to communicate" straw-man argument. Nobody considers these things to be frivolous. I would consider slack's annoying gifs and discord's extensive emoji to be frivolous. > the ability to modify one's own messages Please, no. People editing their own messages later on is possibly the most annoying thing about slack and discord. Say something and move on, or append a message if you made a mistake. > the ability for all participants in the community to see messages in the same format, including code blocks with syntax highlighting, images, video links, and web embeds no thanks. what if I want to disable images, video links, and especially web embeds? all -I- want from a client is a superset of markdown, like gfm, and code highlighting for most languages. and the ability to add syntax highlighting for other languages really easily. all that IRC really needs is a few quality of life fixes like the history you mentioned. "collections of text channels" already exist... that's how IRC works. there's no reason for every single community to repeat similar sub channels. > everything just working I don't think I've ever had an issue with a web client not working.

zapzupnz 7y ago
> straw-man argument Not at all a strawman argument. As I stated, there are a plethora of features in Slack, Discord, and its ilk that are most assuredly not "having fun while pretending to communicate". The whole point of my post is that one cannot so off-handedly dismiss an entire class of application. If GP meant to be dismissive of GIFs and emoji, they can easily have said so. (That said, one can post standard Unicode emoji to IRC, and will anybody call that frivolous?) > People editing their own messages later on is possibly the most annoying thing about slack and discord I'm willing to imagine that some rather high percentage, perhaps in the 80s or 90s, is just people fixing spelling, incorrectly-entered Markdown formatting, or other kinds of minor reformatting. I'll take this over people spamming the text channel with further edits (that may still contain other faults, necessitating more edits in further lines to come). > what if I want to disable images, video links, and especially web embeds? You can in Discord. > "collections of text channels" already exist No, they don't. Channels have no groupings with others within one IRC server. You can't guarantee that a given set of channels on a similar topic have the same owner, same rules, etc. Joining a channel also doesn't automatically join you to another set of channels within that channel's group. The flexibility of channel groups is not replicated in IRC. > I don't think I've ever had an issue with a web client not working So you can use any web client and, with only entering your username and nickserv password, any web client (A) knows what channels to connect you to, (B) what to set as your nickname, (C) how to handle a nickname collision, (D) set up your IRC capabilities all without any further configuration on your part? 'cos that's what people expect, that's what "just working" means. No config every time I encounter a new machine, no having to run a bouncer or screen session on some server in some godforsaken data centre and thus limit myself to terminal-based clients just to keep my connection details consistent across sessions, etc.
- astrobe_ 7y ago
  > If GP meant to be dismissive of GIFs and emoji, they can easily have said so. (That said, one can post standard Unicode emoji to IRC, and will anybody call that frivolous?) OP confirms. But that's the tip of the iceberg. Yes, you can use Unicode in IRC, and yes, people will kick you out if you "misuse" it - but perhaps I've been on weird channels. > incorrectly-entered Markdown formatting, or other kinds of minor reformatting. I don't know what you are talking about. Markdown in IRC? IRC was (one of) the electronic ersatz for verbal dialogue before VoIP. Chat messages shouldn't be longer than a tweet. If you need formatting then you're writing a document, not chatting. There we agree you need another service for that. Something like Pastebin would probably be more suited. However if you are writing something that people should remember or use as a reference, I'd suggest to use a CMS rather than a chat or IM or even email, because sooner or later you'll be sorry otherwise. Especially if your chat platform of choice keeps everything on servers that are not under your control and doesn't offer full client-side backup. Good communication starts with choosing the appropriate tool.
  - intertextuality 7y ago
    In my opinion it should be updated with the times. I find myself writing multiple lines quite often, especially if I'm answering a question. Note that this doesn't prevent anyone from sending single line messages like usual, without markdown. Forums are a totally different medium and I'm not interested in them at all these days. In the Korean discord I'm in, I can ask a question and get a response very promptly because it's just a chat. Sometimes this leads to questions being repeated, but I'll take that over a traditional forum any day. Slack gifs ARE annoying, I don't see how they're not. Discord emoji is fine. Anyway, my point was that the comment I replied to constructed a strawman. When IRC people criticize slack or discord (or call them "frivolous"), it's not because of quality of life improvements like chat history, ease of use, etc.
  - zapzupnz 7y ago
    > Markdown in IRC? No, Markdown in Slack, Discord, etc. > Chat messages shouldn't be longer than a tweet Says who? You? You're not the arbiter of how people should choose to communicate. Aside from that, there are good situations on Discord and Slack where messages tend to be longer, such as announcements, lists of rules, when posting code blocks, giving detailed explanations, etc. > If you need formatting then you're writing a document, not chatting Again, says who? People have had formatting in instant chat for years, in AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, MSN, etc. People can use formatting to provide emphasis, to separate code blocks, etc. Even IRC supports basic bold text blocks. > There we agree you need another service for that No, we don't agree. Why should you need an external service for that? Why send people out of the discussion to an external website, a needless interruption of the flow? There may be times when that's appropriate, but a chat service, something that's inherently about conversations and keeping things in context, no longer needs to mandate this. There are no technical restrictions to this as there were in the 80s and 90s. If people want to share a snippet in the conversation, they should, and now can, do so. Same goes for images, videos, etc. > Good communication starts with choosing the appropriate tool People have found the appropriate tool, have flocked to it in droves, and are quite satisfied. It's only old-fashioned IRC-clinging fuddy-duds who think there's still any question about this. Everybody else is getting on quite productively and happily.

zapzupnz 7y ago

> straw-man argument Not at all a strawman argument. As I stated, there are a plethora of features in Slack, Discord, and its ilk that are most assuredly not "having fun while pretending to communicate". The whole point of my post is that one cannot so off-handedly dismiss an entire class of application. If GP meant to be dismissive of GIFs and emoji, they can easily have said so. (That said, one can post standard Unicode emoji to IRC, and will anybody call that frivolous?) > People editing their own messages later on is possibly the most annoying thing about slack and discord I'm willing to imagine that some rather high percentage, perhaps in the 80s or 90s, is just people fixing spelling, incorrectly-entered Markdown formatting, or other kinds of minor reformatting. I'll take this over people spamming the text channel with further edits (that may still contain other faults, necessitating more edits in further lines to come). > what if I want to disable images, video links, and especially web embeds? You can in Discord. > "collections of text channels" already exist No, they don't. Channels have no groupings with others within one IRC server. You can't guarantee that a given set of channels on a similar topic have the same owner, same rules, etc. Joining a channel also doesn't automatically join you to another set of channels within that channel's group. The flexibility of channel groups is not replicated in IRC. > I don't think I've ever had an issue with a web client not working So you can use any web client and, with only entering your username and nickserv password, any web client (A) knows what channels to connect you to, (B) what to set as your nickname, (C) how to handle a nickname collision, (D) set up your IRC capabilities all without any further configuration on your part? 'cos that's what people expect, that's what "just working" means. No config every time I encounter a new machine, no having to run a bouncer or screen session on some server in some godforsaken data centre and thus limit myself to terminal-based clients just to keep my connection details consistent across sessions, etc.

astrobe_ 7y ago
> If GP meant to be dismissive of GIFs and emoji, they can easily have said so. (That said, one can post standard Unicode emoji to IRC, and will anybody call that frivolous?) OP confirms. But that's the tip of the iceberg. Yes, you can use Unicode in IRC, and yes, people will kick you out if you "misuse" it - but perhaps I've been on weird channels. > incorrectly-entered Markdown formatting, or other kinds of minor reformatting. I don't know what you are talking about. Markdown in IRC? IRC was (one of) the electronic ersatz for verbal dialogue before VoIP. Chat messages shouldn't be longer than a tweet. If you need formatting then you're writing a document, not chatting. There we agree you need another service for that. Something like Pastebin would probably be more suited. However if you are writing something that people should remember or use as a reference, I'd suggest to use a CMS rather than a chat or IM or even email, because sooner or later you'll be sorry otherwise. Especially if your chat platform of choice keeps everything on servers that are not under your control and doesn't offer full client-side backup. Good communication starts with choosing the appropriate tool.
- intertextuality 7y ago
  In my opinion it should be updated with the times. I find myself writing multiple lines quite often, especially if I'm answering a question. Note that this doesn't prevent anyone from sending single line messages like usual, without markdown. Forums are a totally different medium and I'm not interested in them at all these days. In the Korean discord I'm in, I can ask a question and get a response very promptly because it's just a chat. Sometimes this leads to questions being repeated, but I'll take that over a traditional forum any day. Slack gifs ARE annoying, I don't see how they're not. Discord emoji is fine. Anyway, my point was that the comment I replied to constructed a strawman. When IRC people criticize slack or discord (or call them "frivolous"), it's not because of quality of life improvements like chat history, ease of use, etc.
- zapzupnz 7y ago
  > Markdown in IRC? No, Markdown in Slack, Discord, etc. > Chat messages shouldn't be longer than a tweet Says who? You? You're not the arbiter of how people should choose to communicate. Aside from that, there are good situations on Discord and Slack where messages tend to be longer, such as announcements, lists of rules, when posting code blocks, giving detailed explanations, etc. > If you need formatting then you're writing a document, not chatting Again, says who? People have had formatting in instant chat for years, in AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, MSN, etc. People can use formatting to provide emphasis, to separate code blocks, etc. Even IRC supports basic bold text blocks. > There we agree you need another service for that No, we don't agree. Why should you need an external service for that? Why send people out of the discussion to an external website, a needless interruption of the flow? There may be times when that's appropriate, but a chat service, something that's inherently about conversations and keeping things in context, no longer needs to mandate this. There are no technical restrictions to this as there were in the 80s and 90s. If people want to share a snippet in the conversation, they should, and now can, do so. Same goes for images, videos, etc. > Good communication starts with choosing the appropriate tool People have found the appropriate tool, have flocked to it in droves, and are quite satisfied. It's only old-fashioned IRC-clinging fuddy-duds who think there's still any question about this. Everybody else is getting on quite productively and happily.