Hi Alexis, I just wanted to put in my two cents here. I first wanted to state that I wholeheartedly believe in the Common Lisp Cookbook. I think one of the barriers to entry for most Lisp newbies is the fact that it is so hard to find good resources for sample Lisp code on the web. The Lisp community is in desperate need of a really comprehensive web-based library to turn to for sample code of all the chores that a programmer is commonly tasked with doing. Even though the site is small, I have already found it useful several times and would very much like to see it grow into a very bountiful resource.
As for changing the system around. I agree with Edi that the Cookbook needs to be as correct as possible to make sure that new Lisp users do not get discouraged with bad information. However, I would like to see the site change a bit to allow both approved editors and and online submission system (where one of the approved editors could proofread and check the code before allowing the submission to be published). I think a system like they have on the Python Cookbook (http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Python/Cookbook/) would do nicely. So, in conclusion, yes--I do believe in the importance of the CL Cookbook and I would love to see it maintained and taken even further than it is right now. I think this is definitely a worthwhile gardener's project. Thanks for the post Alexis, Christopher On 1/24/06, Alexis Gallagher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:22:35 +0530, "quasi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > why not just create a page like cffi-examples at the cliki and link it > > from the CFFI page ? Or just add the example at the bottom of the > > cffi page itself if it is not too long ? > > > > I was dimly aware of the cliki, but my main memory was that it was > confusing. When I looked, I couldn't find a place where a contribution > would be findable by others. In others words, the cliki looks vast but > hard to use. Its mandate is "everything", which is a bit wide. The CL > cookbook looks well-structured, usable, but nontrivial to contribute to > and (not coincidentally) too small to be very useful. > > Apropos of these problem with cliki and clcookbook, I just got a reply > back from Edi Weitz. He founded the CL cookbook and has authorized me to > cc his email onto this list. Notably, he mentions he'd welcome someone > taking over the project. > > Edi Weitz writes: > > <edi> Hi Alexis! > > I'm not subscribed to the gardeners list but it's fine if you want to > forward my reply to them. > > The CL Cookbook is obviously not doing very well at the moment. It > seems that all contributors (including myself) are too busy with other > things. However, new contributors are always welcome. If you want to > add something, just email me and I'll set up the necessary commit > rights. Having said that, I also wouldn't mind if someone would want to > take over my task of maintaining the whole project (which at the moment > isn't much more than adding new contributors every now and then). > > As far as converting the project to a Wiki-like thingy - well, I don't > believe in Wikis. I think that to achieve an overall level of > correctness and conciseness you need some editorial control and a group > of contributors which agree on certain standards. In fact, a > documentation project aimed at newbies where every random Joe User can > add or modify stuff is potentially more dangerous than helpful - just > check out how much wrong advice is given on c.l.l. (and made immortal by > Google Groups). What the CL Cookbook needs is more quality content, not > necessarily a new infrastructure. > > But that is just my personal opinion. The license of the CL > Cookbook obviously allows you take the content as a starting point > for a new project. > > Cheers, Edi. </edi> > > >From his reply, it sounds like the CL cookbook could benefit from > gardening help. Also, it sounds exactly like the kind of resource that > would help newbies. Also, he says he'd welcome someone taking over the > management. Hmmm... > > I happen to agree with Edi that a raw wiki can be unhelpful (see my > complaints about cliki above). But I think I disagree with in thinking > the remedy is an infrastructure that requires "designated contributors" > (which ends up reducing casual contributions). Instead I'd imagine the > best middle ground is setup that allows for very easy contributions > (either a posted email address, or through a wiki), but also includes a > stable core of custodians who care about its quality and keep it > accurate and tidy. I'd imagine most of the work would be deleting > obsolete material, maintaining formatting standards, keeping everything > organized, and cross-referenced. Perhaps this is merely the distinction > between editorial effort and editorial control. A practical approach to > this question: how did the Perl community do it? > > Is this a worthwhile gardening project, or just a diversion of > overdiluted resources? It seems like the CL community has a million > small unused documentation projects, so maybe one more is not a good > thing. > What do others think? > > alexis > _______________________________________________ > Gardeners mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners > -- Christopher Roach [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
