The talk was interesting. It focused more on the project that was created than it did on the process of finding, entering, working on, submitting, and handling the results of a development competition submission.
You have good energy and are well-spoken.
The talk covered a lot of issues in convincing upper management to allow time for code refactoring, but seemed focused on very small organizations. The talk also didn't cover much in the way of strategy in this path to management, nor was the concept of technical debt even mentioned.
I think the intention behind this talk was solid, but the broad consideration needed for presenting this to developers across multiple organizations requires more refining.
This is a subject I have dealt with numerous times in numerous companies in the past and, if my remarks don't generate seething hatred towards me, I would be more than happy to give my insights and perspective to broaden the potential user base of this talk.
For someone who has not ever used semantic versioning, but loves the concept of composer, this was a get session. Not only was the presenter well versed in the topic, but the presentation walked through how composer sees versions and gave some great scenarios about their usage. When I start developing packages, this knowledge will be well used.
Great topic, and I liked that the speaker outlined the problems that were going to be "solved" by git workflows - then actually did it. I believe that Joel stated that that the things he was going to talk about weren't the only way, but they were the way he has come into through trial and error. I tend to like these type of talks.
This talk was awesome, learned some new things and solidified some coding practices.
Props for the star trek slide that was hilarious!
Great talk, i have been trying alot of new frameworks lately and i now have a much better understanding of how silex works.
Only thing i would suggest is maybe some running code vs just the foo bar type methods.
Taking into account the fact that it was a borrowed laptop that didn't have the functioning examples, I think that the talk had the potential to be really informational - the points that were outlined were pretty relevant, but it felt like the speaker wasn't that sure of what the code example should do once he found them.
As an intro this talk had good content! It was easy to follow and a good follow up to Beth's session. It did feel at times like the presenter was unsure of the content or was having a tough time relaying some of the information that he clearly knew.
I'm relatively new to Silex, and this talk answered a lot of questions and gave me a lot of ideas as to how improve the project that is still in progress. This gave a good base to start from, in terms of how to do it right, some consideration to keep in mind, and some things to flat out avoid.
I absolutely enjoyed this talk. A lot of the points solidified what I've been trying to push my organization towards.
Larry is quite energetic and just as unique. This tied with knowledge and experience made for a presentation that didn't get boring and left me with plenty to think about.