[missing implementations]

[Raymond Toy]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:12 AM Michał "phoe" Herda <phoe at disroot.org>
wrote:

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

It's not unmaintained  Maintenance is really bursty though.  The same could
have been said for clisp which didn't see *any* updates for several years.
(That's changed recently and there's been quite a few changes.)

> On 14.10.2018 19:35, Raymond Toy wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Kochmański <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 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.  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 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
>
>
>

-- 
Ray
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/clo-devel/attachments/20181014/9bcb5939/attachment-0001.html>