Using quotes of Bruce Lee as the glue for this talk was entertaining and inspiring at the same time.
The topic was fresh and gave food for thought.
I really liked the demonstration with the blue prints. Maybe you can extend that a bit with examples (like where would you put the ball in the stadion schematic)
The Diablo reference was nice but I think it can invite people to write bad code(It will be thrown out anyway).
In short. really nice talk that gives people a new look on how to design their software architecture
Eggcellent maiden voyage, agree with sentiments above, especially the memorable quotes bit.
TLDR: more Bruce, less Lee
4/5: would Bruce again
There was a lot of good information in this talk and the delivery was really good. I've already relayed some feedback in person about how I think it can be slightly improved, but just to make sure it doesn't get lost:
- Intro was very good. First ten minutes were a good intro
- Delivery was excellent. The balance between serious information and jokes is good, keeps people awake while still delivering the important information
- I feel it needs some more memorable punchlines. I mentioned tweetable quotes yesterday, but thinking a bit more about that, it doesn't even have to be that. But the information needs to be able to stick in people's minds for a bit longer, trigger thoughts. I'm not sure how to better do that, but I have the feeling that the information doesn't necessarily sticks yet. One example I mentioned yesterday in the conversation: You try to tell people not to get attached to their code, so why not write some code in your examples and then throw it away and create a new example?
Overall though, this is a very promising first time you do this talk. I'm pretty sure this can evolve into an excellent 5/5.
After seeing the Bruce Lee abstract I was immediately hyped for this talk. Jeroen used quotes from Bruce Lee to explain Application Architecture and all funny jokes aside, it is quite an eye opener.
Delivery was also very good as expected. The code samples were mostly clear and it helps understanding the concepts explained.
Reason for 4/5 is that it could be polished a bit more and then it has high potential of becoming a 5/5 :)