Dutch PHP Conference 2017
29 Jun - 1 Jul 2017 at RAI Amsterdam

Very useful to finally get some insite in event sourcing. Only thing I'm missing is the integration in framework of application

I didn't really enjoy this talk, which sucks to say because I really enjoy talking to you and enjoyed your other talk immensely. Let me tell you why I didn't enjoy this...

I think you were either too nervous or unprepared to present on the topic. It felt as though you were describing something on demand, not because you enjoy the topic. It also felt as though the meaningful introduction to graphs could have been done in half the time.

I feel as though you could entirely drop the Polish Notation section, and show a lot more code about how to create and use graph storage. It doesn't have to be an introduction to a specific graph storage engine, but it could be something like "if you had a graph engine, this is how you would pull some of that data out, and why this would be better than that relational/object engine you're using". I found the "menu" section to be the best part of the talk, because it's the only thing that got close to code. But it happened quickly, right at the end.

Only got to hear half of this talk, but that which I heard was wonderfully thought-provoking. I am beginning to try to plan out applications like the one that was described, so there was a lot to take a way after, including from a conversation with you later in the day.

I feel as though you gave the talk a month too early, though. There were so many awesome things you proposed and described, but seemed just out of time enough not to have had a chance to implement them before the talk. I also feel like Laravel was less incidental than you explained to me before. The built-in auth (which I think is uniquely fully-featured in the category of frameworks) is a huge benefit for people starting to make this project. I'd concentrate more on building the JS aspects closer to the native JS of Laravel, explaining the custom and repurposed async bcrypt/pgp JS (these were an interesting story not told), and demonstrating more of the processing concept in real code.

I'd definitely like to listen to the full talk, with a more developed proof of concept!

I really enjoy this topic, and I was thrilled to be able to see a talk by someone so deeply embedded in the project. I think there were aspects of it thought could be improved, though. For example, I enjoyed the live audience participation, but feel it suffered because of the intermittent internet failure.

It seems like a contradiction to say that getting people to take part over the internet is good, but depending on the internet at all is bad. It's a difficult problem to solve, but I think having a local server (Raspi) or pre-configured, pre-started set of examples somewhere on the internet would go a long way to helping. That way, others could use mobile internet to connect – they wouldn't have to go through the conference internet to get to your machine. Or they could connect directly to a Raspi wifi hotspot and interact there.

I also feel as though the were perhaps too many small topics (this is how you use component x) instead of one larger, cohesive topic (this is what you can do with React). There is a huge deficit of documentation on how to build a wholistic application, which is what people need to see before they decide to build a whole application...

I love the topic, but I didn't enjoy this talk. I think the biggest problem I had with it was that it felt more like a collection of smaller talks (with topics more interestingly expressed than the theme of the talk) than one cohesive talk. If, for example, the talk had _only_ been about PCNTL – where you build a non-trivial script with it, and use signals – then it would have been fantastic. Or...if you had approached each section of the talk (how to use PCNTL, things to watch out for etc) by building one large project throughout; then I think it would also have been better.

We all have good days and bad days. I don't think this presentation was one of the good days, but I completely understand how nerves can play a role in determining this. I'm sure it will be better next time!

The workshop met my expectations. As a developer with little Drupal experience I could easily follow the workshop.

Preparation instructions for the workshop could have been more optimized. For example we had the bad luck, installation of the Drupal Console was not as easy as expected due to bad WIFI connectivity. This could have been prevented if we recieved instructions to install these tools beforehand. Much time was lost on this initial step, resulting us not being alble to finish the entire course.

This was a fun talk. After hearing about all the wonderful things you can do with technology, it's great to get a reminder of some of the wonderful things you shouldn't do with technology. A bit of thoughtfulness up front can save a lot of stress after.

I enjoyed this talk. The topic is highly-underrated and you are a great presenter. I sat in both your talks, and I feel as though this one was by far the better talk.

I think there were a few things which didn't go over as well as they could (like the avo toast reference), but it was generally satisfying. I also think that you could expand the talk in the direction of the moral implications of doing a professional job. I sent you a link for the presentation Uncle Bob did a couple weeks before, and he focussed entirely on that aspect (ignoring the aspect you spoke about almost entirely). I think the talk would be tons better by combining the two aspects...

This talk was missing the "why" very much. It explained a lot of things about functional programming, but in a theoretical way and without context, due to which most of it was lost on me. This talk probably would have worked as a lecture during a course in university, but as a single 45m presentation during a conference, it didn't really work.

I really enjoy this topic, and speak about it every now and then. I went in thinking it might be a little boring because of that (given the abstract), but I was pleasantly surprised. I'd definitely sit through this talk about, but in case you're looking for something to improve before then...

I found the Polish Notation section _very_ dry. I understand why you needed to explain it, since the grammar you defined was easier to execute when polish notation was used, but I think there are other avenues you could try, which would remove the need to explain Polish Notation at all.

To contrast, Christopher Hoult also spoke about Polish Notation (in his graphs talk) and it was far more digestible. Perhaps it was because he was approaching it via an introduction to graph traversal. Perhaps it was because his visual aids were better. In any case, I much preferred his description of Polish Notation.

If you explained your parser via state machines and then lightly touched on prefix/postfix, I think you'd avoid needing to demonstrate Polish Notation at all. You'd also have more time to expand on the grammar (for things like parenthetical associativity).