Hey,
new website is great. There are though a few suprises:
- clisp and lispworks are not listed in Resources -> Common Lisp Implementations
- 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
Hi Daniel,
Franz is paying an annual fee for a "sponsored link" for Allegro CL (which will help us defray out-of-pocket hosting expenses), and with their payment they requested to be "first to the party" for a short while at least in terms of sponsored links on the site.
In the meantime I agree that LispWorks certainly belongs with a listing of implementations, but we would have to hold back the "Sponsored Link" status for the time being.
I suggest listing them on the /implementations page but leaving Allegro by itself on the downloads/ ("Get Started") page for the next couple months.
Other viable implementations such as clisp should also be listed as well. How about also MKCL, the current attempt at resurrecting Corman in 64-bit, Open Genera... (I guess Scieneer is inactive these days)... I know we are pointing to Wikipedia as a fallback so maybe we don't have to be listing every single conceivable implementation here. Where do we draw the line is the question.
Mariano, would you like to have a go at making these updates?
Dave
P.S. The main negative feedback I've seen on reddit and HN has to do with the color scheme. The red bar at the top has been mistaken for a browser warning regarding visiting the site. The font size has also been described as too small (they are comparing with lisp-lang.org). Do we have any opinions on this? Anyone want to have a play with layout_2018.css?
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:32 AM Daniel Kochmański daniel@turtleware.eu wrote:
Hey,
new website is great. There are though a few suprises:
- clisp and lispworks are not listed in Resources -> Common Lisp
Implementations
- 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
Hi Dave,
I can play around colors and font size within the current theme (bootstrap simplex). I just need an account for me on gitlab.common-lisp.net.
Best Regards, Tim Plotnikov 11 окт. 2018 г., 18:02 +0300, Dave Cooper david.cooper@genworks.com, писал:
Hi Daniel,
Franz is paying an annual fee for a "sponsored link" for Allegro CL (which will help us defray out-of-pocket hosting expenses), and with their payment they requested to be "first to the party" for a short while at least in terms of sponsored links on the site.
In the meantime I agree that LispWorks certainly belongs with a listing of implementations, but we would have to hold back the "Sponsored Link" status for the time being.
I suggest listing them on the /implementations page but leaving Allegro by itself on the downloads/ ("Get Started") page for the next couple months.
Other viable implementations such as clisp should also be listed as well. How about also MKCL, the current attempt at resurrecting Corman in 64-bit, Open Genera... (I guess Scieneer is inactive these days)... I know we are pointing to Wikipedia as a fallback so maybe we don't have to be listing every single conceivable implementation here. Where do we draw the line is the question.
Mariano, would you like to have a go at making these updates?
Dave
P.S. The main negative feedback I've seen on reddit and HN has to do with the color scheme. The red bar at the top has been mistaken for a browser warning regarding visiting the site. The font size has also been described as too small (they are comparing with lisp-lang.org). Do we have any opinions on this? Anyone want to have a play with layout_2018.css?
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:32 AM Daniel Kochmański daniel@turtleware.eu wrote:
Hey,
new website is great. There are though a few suprises:
- clisp and lispworks are not listed in Resources -> Common Lisp
Implementations
- 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
-- My Best,
Dave Cooper, david.cooper@gen.works genworks.com, gendl.org +1 248-330-2979
El 11/10/18 a las 14:22, Tim Plotnikov escribió:
Hi Dave,
I can play around colors and font size within the current theme (bootstrap simplex).
For the record, there are two other navbar styles available in simplex theme. bg-dark and bg-light. I don't know if they'll look good, though.
https://bootswatch.com/simplex/
Regards,
Mariano
May I suggest a “CLtL2” color scheme?
A color like
#9ebcb4
looks a bit like the cover of the book.
Cheers
Marco
On Oct 11, 2018, at 11:07 , Mariano Montone marianomontone@gmail.com wrote:
El 11/10/18 a las 14:22, Tim Plotnikov escribió:
Hi Dave,
I can play around colors and font size within the current theme (bootstrap simplex).
For the record, there are two other navbar styles available in simplex theme. bg-dark and bg-light. I don't know if they'll look good, though.
https://bootswatch.com/simplex/
Regards,
Mariano
-- Marco Antoniotti
Mariano wrote:
For the record, there are two other navbar styles available in simplex theme. bg-dark and bg-light. I don't know if they'll look good, though.
Right - but we're not necessarily bound by those, are we? I assume we can override any of those default styles in our own .css?
Also, the height (i.e. thickness) of the navbar looks like it's designed to accomodate the search window, which we don't have currently. So I'm thinking the navbar can be somewhat narrower...
Marco's suggestion of mimicking CLTL2's color theme sounds reasonable.
El 11/10/18 a las 15:26, Dave Cooper escribió:
Mariano wrote:
For the record, there are two other navbar styles available in simplex theme. bg-dark and bg-light. I don't know if they'll look good, though. https://bootswatch.com/simplex/Right - but we're not necessarily bound by those, are we?
No. We are not bound by those. I just mentioned them just in case they were useful.
Yeah, I’ve tried dark nav bar and it looks nice, but we definitely should try cltl2 suggestion, it can be interesting. Also, I wonder can we use scss or sass to have an ability to define colors in vars?
Best Regards, Tim Plotnikov 11 окт. 2018 г., 21:37 +0300, Mariano Montone marianomontone@gmail.com, писал:
El 11/10/18 a las 15:26, Dave Cooper escribió:
Mariano wrote:
For the record, there are two other navbar styles available in simplex theme. bg-dark and bg-light. I don't know if they'll look good, though.
https://bootswatch.com/simplex/
Right - but we're not necessarily bound by those, are we?
No. We are not bound by those. I just mentioned them just in case they were useful.
El 11/10/18 a las 15:50, Tim Plotnikov escribió:
Also, I wonder can we use scss or sass to have an ability to define colors in vars?
I guess you could, but you'd have to evaluate the effort to setup that for the amount of changes we want to make. Perhaps it is not worth it for just tuning the navbar. But if you think it is, then go ahead, sounds like the correct way to implement Boostrap theming.
Mariano
I mean, if we want to make changes to themes and colors in future, we probably want to make some kind of css processing, but it can be like an overhead for now, you probably right here.
Best Regards, Tim Plotnikov 11 окт. 2018 г., 21:54 +0300, Mariano Montone marianomontone@gmail.com, писал:
El 11/10/18 a las 15:50, Tim Plotnikov escribió:
Also, I wonder can we use scss or sass to have an ability to define colors in vars?
I guess you could, but you'd have to evaluate the effort to setup that for the amount of changes we want to make. Perhaps it is not worth it for just tuning the navbar. But if you think it is, then go ahead, sounds like the correct way to implement Boostrap theming.
Mariano
At least, we can implement it later on as separate task
Best Regards, Tim Plotnikov 11 окт. 2018 г., 22:03 +0300, Tim Plotnikov kristoft.1329@gmail.com, писал:
I mean, if we want to make changes to themes and colors in future, we probably want to make some kind of css processing, but it can be like an overhead for now, you probably right here.
Best Regards, Tim Plotnikov 11 окт. 2018 г., 21:54 +0300, Mariano Montone marianomontone@gmail.com, писал:
El 11/10/18 a las 15:50, Tim Plotnikov escribió:
Also, I wonder can we use scss or sass to have an ability to define colors in vars?
I guess you could, but you'd have to evaluate the effort to setup that for the amount of changes we want to make. Perhaps it is not worth it for just tuning the navbar. But if you think it is, then go ahead, sounds like the correct way to implement Boostrap theming.
Mariano
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Kochmański daniel@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@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
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@turtleware.eu mailto:daniel@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 ImplementationsThere 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@common-lisp.net mailto:project-cvs@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.)%C2%A0 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
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:12 AM Michał "phoe" Herda phoe@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@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@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
Hi Raymond,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 7:37 PM Raymond Toy toy.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Kochmański daniel@turtleware.eu wrote:
Hey,
new website is great. There are though a few suprises:
Yes, the new site looks really nice.
Thanks! (On behalf of Mariano who created the design, I guess)
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.)
Actually, that's not just you. I don't really care about reddit either, personally. I'd like the front page to convey news to those who don't read their mail and don't read this mailing list (but do visit the site, I guess). So, yes, this is IMO a great enhancement.
The getting started page could be a bit more inclusive (or less exclusive).
I understand where you're coming from. The problem we're having is: we want to get a newbie started, not overwhelmed. Do you have a suggestion how we can achieve that without excluding all the perfectly good implementations that currently aren't listed on that page?
- clisp and lispworks are not listed in Resources -> Common Lisp
Implementations
There are others missing like cmucl and gcl. What is the criteria here?
Other than being a Common Lisp implementation? None. There's an issue to track this point and I've added a comment to that extent to that issue indeed: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/13
I think the order of the resources pull down should have lisp implementations first.
Resources->Libraries includes a section on implementations. That seems wrong.
Correct on both accounts. I've created issues for both. ( https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/23 and https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/24).
(Also, what is the criteria for having a link of standard compliance or conformance?)
Basically, I think these link to compliance/conformance statements. If CMUCL or any other implementation has one, I think those should be added. As per the CL standard, you're compliant when you state your level of compliance :-)
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.
When did you do that? I just yesterday changed a bit of configuration which caused some of the sites which actually had both the placeholder *and* real content, turn up the real content instead of the placeholder. This has been a configuration issue with the site for the last few years (in combination with laziness of the projects not removing the placeholder...)
I've issued a plan to this mailing list to do exactly as you propose and direct projects without project pages to the GitLab group pages (which list all the groups Git repositories).
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.)
Traditionally, the pages on the site all had their own style as selected by the project members. Do we want to change that? I mean, sure, it makes the site look more consistent. Maybe we can approach the project members of the various projects and ask them to align to a single style?
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@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?)
In general that page is outdated. We're still building the site generator to allow easier editing of the sources such as support for Markdown to allow quicker editing and adjustment of content.
As for the project-cvs mailing list: yes, that has been true until very recently. I think having a commit mailing list doesn't make as much sense as it used to, given that GitLab allows monitoring of commits in similar ways. Although if projects *want* a mailing list to send their commit messages to, that's still supported.
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.
Yup.
It looks really great, though!
Thanks for taking the time to provide us with feedback!
Regards,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:33 AM Erik Huelsmann ehuels@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Raymond,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 7:37 PM Raymond Toy toy.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Kochmański daniel@turtleware.eu wrote:
Hey,
new website is great. There are though a few suprises:
Yes, the new site looks really nice.
Thanks! (On behalf of Mariano who created the design, I guess)
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.)
Actually, that's not just you. I don't really care about reddit either, personally. I'd like the front page to convey news to those who don't read their mail and don't read this mailing list (but do visit the site, I guess). So, yes, this is IMO a great enhancement.
Just moving reddit down to the bottom would be ok for me. :-)
The getting started page could be a bit more inclusive (or less exclusive).
I understand where you're coming from. The problem we're having is: we want to get a newbie started, not overwhelmed. Do you have a suggestion how we can achieve that without excluding all the perfectly good implementations that currently aren't listed on that page?
Yeah, I don't really have a good answer for that. Interestingly, none of the implementations listed are actually hosted on common-lisp.net. :-) That shouldn't be a requirement though!
- clisp and lispworks are not listed in Resources -> Common Lisp
Implementations
There are others missing like cmucl and gcl. What is the criteria here?
Other than being a Common Lisp implementation? None. There's an issue to track this point and I've added a comment to that extent to that issue indeed: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/13
I think the order of the resources pull down should have lisp implementations first.
Resources->Libraries includes a section on implementations. That seems wrong.
Correct on both accounts. I've created issues for both. ( https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/23 and https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/clo/cl-site/issues/24).
(Also, what is the criteria for having a link of standard compliance or conformance?)
Basically, I think these link to compliance/conformance statements. If CMUCL or any other implementation has one, I think those should be added. As per the CL standard, you're compliant when you state your level of compliance :-)
I'll see what I can do....
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.
When did you do that? I just yesterday changed a bit of configuration which caused some of the sites which actually had both the placeholder *and* real content, turn up the real content instead of the placeholder. This has been a configuration issue with the site for the last few years (in combination with laziness of the projects not removing the placeholder...)
I did that just before sending out this message. Maybe the ones that I clicked on don't have any code either. Hard to say. :-)
I've issued a plan to this mailing list to do exactly as you propose and direct projects without project pages to the GitLab group pages (which list all the groups Git repositories).
I realized that just after sending the message. I think it's a good plan, obviously.
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.)
Traditionally, the pages on the site all had their own style as selected by the project members. Do we want to change that? I mean, sure, it makes the site look more consistent. Maybe we can approach the project members of the various projects and ask them to align to a single style?
I don't want to enforce a rule like that. But it would be nice if it were easy to set up the site using the same style. Then old projects can decide if they want to or not and new projects will get the site-wide style by default.
These all seem to be a bit of work, so I'm not saying it's a must. People have other things to do too.
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@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?)
In general that page is outdated. We're still building the site generator to allow easier editing of the sources such as support for Markdown to allow quicker editing and adjustment of content.
As for the project-cvs mailing list: yes, that has been true until very recently. I think having a commit mailing list doesn't make as much sense as it used to, given that GitLab allows monitoring of commits in similar ways. Although if projects *want* a mailing list to send their commit messages to, that's still supported.
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.
Yup.
It looks really great, though!
Thanks for taking the time to provide us with feedback!
Regards,
-- Bye,
Erik.
http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
-
Daniel Kochmański -
Dave Cooper -
Erik Huelsmann -
Marco Antoniotti -
Mariano Montone -
Michał "phoe" Herda -
Raymond Toy -
Tim Plotnikov