[missing implementations]

Michał "phoe" Herda phoe at disroot.org
Sun Oct 14 17:58:32 UTC 2018

GCL should not be included in the list. It has been unmaintained for a
long time and never achieved ANSI CL compliance.

On 14.10.2018 19:35, Raymond Toy wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Kochmański
> <daniel at turtleware.eu <mailto:daniel at turtleware.eu>> wrote:
>     Hey,
>     new website is great. There are though a few suprises:
> Yes, the new site looks really nice.
> I think the latest news section should have common-lisp news first. (I
> couldn't care less about what reddit has to say, but maybe that's just
> me.)
> The getting started page could be a bit more inclusive (or less
> exclusive).
>     - clisp and lispworks are not listed in Resources -> Common Lisp
>     Implementations
> There are others missing like cmucl and gcl.  What is the criteria here?
> I think the order of the resources pull down should have lisp
> implementations first.
> Resources->Libraries includes a section on implementations.  That
> seems wrong. (Also, what is the criteria for having a link o stand
> compliance or conformance?)
> I also random clicked on some of the projects.  Quite a few are just
> place holders.  In those cases, could they just be redirected to the
> git repo?  It just makes the project look totally dead.
> I would be kind of neat if the project pages that happen to be hosted
> on common-lisp.net <http://common-lisp.net> use a uniform style.  That
> would make the sites look really nice.  (Cmucl just redirects to it's
> wiki page, which is better than nothing.)
> The project hosting page (https://common-lisp.net/project-intro)
> mentions CVS access in the Table of Contents.  That's all gone. 
> Similarly, the "Repositories over the web" section mentions cvs and
> subversion, as the "Subversion" section.  Also, the section on git
> repos mentions the commit list is project-cvs at common-lisp.net
> <mailto:project-cvs at common-lisp.net>.  Is that true?  Finally, IIRC,
> Trac is still available, but really rather limited, maybe even mostly
> read-only.  (Maybe also need to update
> https://common-lisp.net/tools#trac.)  Maybe there needs to be a
> mention somewhere (I didn't find any) that c-l.net <http://c-l.net> is
> using gitlab. (BTW, is there a way to find out what version of gitlab
> is being used?)
> These are just some things I noticed when looking over this new site
> for the first time.  Many of these are probably issues with the old
> site, so it's kind of expected the new one has the same issues.
> It looks really great, though!
>     - lispworks is not listed on getting started download page, but
>     allegro
>     is (since two free implementations are listed, it would be
>     justified to
>     mention two most popular commercial ones)
>     Best regards,
>     Daniel
> -- 
> Ray

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/clo-devel/attachments/20181014/3d335b1e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the clo-devel mailing list