this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
34 points (85.4% liked)
Programming
23926 readers
235 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Videos that should have been articles?
Yeah I will literally never watch any of these subscription/sponsor-begging "youtubers". All of the videos of this kind should just be text. Keep your goofy over-the-top facial expressions and quirky delivery to yourself, please.
The good news is that they've never had an original thought in their life and these videos do already exist as articles, which they've stolen and repackaged into video form.
Here is the original content for this video: https://doi.org/10.1145%2F358198.358210
Dude, people are still asking wtf functors, monoidd, monads, and other such things are and there are papers written about those things all the time. Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody can stay awake while reading a scientific article? Are you just unwilling to accept that videos are easier to consume?
Some people cannot understand what such scientific articles are saying because of how they were written and for which audience. Are you unaware that visual aids and animations exist? Do you think describing something is always better than showing it? There is a reason the expression "a picture can say more than a thousand words".
Yes, there are some videos that are just somebody reading an article to you with no added content, but I feel like this argument is brought jp regardless of video. Providing a DOI:// link just makes me shake my head.
None of what you described requires a video. Articles can be written for different audiences, and, in fact, are much more capable of mixed-media content. Text can be selected/copied/consumed by screen readers etc, graphics can be embedded with accessibility information (unlike videos, which can easily contain inaccessible content), images can contain controls that allow one to pan, zoom, etc. and can be separately downloaded, other file types can be embedded with their own controls (including animations, as needed). Relevant related content (like, say, documentation) can be linked inline where it's referenced, rather than dropping a huge bag of links in a video description. Articles can be indexed, searched, translated, and more. Articles also allow each person to consume the content at their own pace, rather than whatever pace is determined by the person in the video. I personally find videos agonizingly slow compared to how fast I can read.
Videos are an ineffective mechanism for communication of information, particularly for information that is more complex or technical in nature. They are popular due to the ever-shrinking attention span of people, but that doesn't mean we should optimize for that.
I'll hold on to my opinion, you'll hold on to yours. Just don't think your opinion is fact, or even worse, universal.
One last thing: videos can be sped up.