> Tell me when the PDF version has embedded, runnable code snippets.
When you're making the basic task of seeing the slides impossible, nobody cares about your pointless turd-polishing.
Furthermore, PDF readers (at least Adobe's, but third-parties also sometimes do even if not all APIs are present) embed an ECMAScript interpreter, so you can indeed have embedded runnable code snippets in PDF: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/javascript.html
> These are slides for the presenter. [...] Only the presenter has to care.
Irrelevant, the whole thread of inquiry is about seeing the slides locally, you're two comments too late to try that one: you implicitly acknowledged the desire and desirability of personally viewing the slides in your previous comment.
> So you wrote a Go to Javascript compiler?
Also irrelevant (although there likely is no need to, there's an LLVM Go frontend and there's emscripten), the exact same method used here can be used there.
> Can the VM running in the PDF reader implement a web server that can interact with the outside world?
I think you are getting a bit too aggressive about some slides with poor UI. You are asking a lot of the slide authors to minor facilitate secondary usage at the expense of primary usage.
It could be a lot worse, they could be like 99% of the other slides in the industry: completely worthless without listening to the accompanying lecture.
Primary considerations are centered around the presenter himself. He is the primary user of the slides, so whichever system he is most comfortable with will be the obvious choice.
Asking that the presenter dedicate less time to preparation and more time to constructing some sort of elaborate LLVM/emscripten PDF presentation just for the benefit of secondary users who won't/can't use arrow keys is fairly unreasonable.
I'm not really asking anything, I merely replied to "4ad"'s insulting dismissal of concerns voiced by two other people as to the usability of the deck, then replied to his dishonesty and goalpost-moving antics.
> minor facilitate secondary usage
Making it actually possible to see the deck you officially posted online is neither facilitation or minor.
> at the expense of primary usage.
"Primary usage" is clicking a "run" button? Really?
> It could be a lot worse
That is a troubling qualifier, how is inaccessible information better than accessible worthless information?
When you're making the basic task of seeing the slides impossible, nobody cares about your pointless turd-polishing.
Furthermore, PDF readers (at least Adobe's, but third-parties also sometimes do even if not all APIs are present) embed an ECMAScript interpreter, so you can indeed have embedded runnable code snippets in PDF: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/javascript.html