Peter Seibel wrote: >If the problem you're trying to solve is that Lisp newbies are >directed to the Hyperspec simply because there aren't good >alternatives, then it seems the only solution is to produce the >alternatives. > What bothers me the most about the Hyperspec is that it's inconsistent. For example, the entry for "char-code" doesn't even mention an inverse, whereas the entry for "code-char" has an example that uses #'char-code and a link in the "See Also" section. Of course, if you go to Contents->Characters->Character\ Concepts->Introduction\ to\ Characters, you will see them both listed.
One thing that slows people down (and definitely slowed me down for a long time) is that it's not easy to take existing programming knowledge and port it to Common Lisp. If I want to write a program in Lisp, my normal storehouse of programming idioms and techniques may or may not be doable. I think the Common Lisp Cookbook does a lot to help with this problem, but it is still very small and has lots of room to grow. I wonder if the Cookbook doesn't have the kind of recognition it ought to have? For many, the Hyperspec seems "old school", inefficient, and needlessly complex. I wish more languages would learn from the example of PHP (not in terms of the language, but in terms of documentation). Great searchable documentation, complete cross-referencing of companion functions for each entry, chapters on lots of aggregate topics, many (many) examples, and annotations added by those using the documentation which throws all kinds of usefulness into the bottom of every page. Every time I have to swish my feet around in it, the documentation never fails to satisfy. If only the language was prettier ;-). -Josh Stone- _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
