--
Dear "foo": You are correct, Emacs Lisp and EuLisp are perfectly valid implementations as far as the ALU is concerned, because the ALU stands behind all Lisp users, regardless of dialect. Whoever keeps removing other Lisp implementations in favor of Common Lisp is nothing more than a vandal. However, they are welcome to post their rationale here on this discussion page for community review. It may perhaps be a good idea to have a seperate page specifically for Common Lisp Implementations. Lets talk about this rather than constantly re-editing each other. - The Management 01-Sep-05

--

I am Paolo Amoroso, the "vandal" who removed a link to the LispMe Scheme implementation from the Implementation page (see the change log entry for Tuesday, 30 August 2005, 10:18). For my attitude on LispMe, see here (a bit out of date, but still mostly accurate). For my attitude on Scheme, note that I was introduced to Lisp via SICP, and I still have fond memories of TI PC-Scheme.

I created the Implementation page back when most of this site's content was at alu.wiki.net. My intention was to put together only a list of supported Common Lisp implementations, which was missing. At the time, there already was an excellent list of Scheme implementations (now it looks like it was moved elsewhere) at Schemers.org.

I was not, and I am not, against lists of other Lisp implementations, Scheme or otherwise. I assumed that, alu.wiki.net being a Wiki, people interested in other dialects would have added separate lists for their favorite dialects, but this never happened.

So, although I did add the prominent Common Lisp Implementations heading at the top of the page, my choice of just Implementation instead of the more descriptive Common Lisp Implementation as the page's Wiki name was clearly unfortunate.

For what it's worth, I think that lists of different Lisp dialect implementations should be kept separate for easier access and browsing. But this being a Wiki, feel free to do whatever you prefer.

Paolo Amoroso -- September 2, 2005

--

Hi Paolo, thank you for your considerate reply explaining where you are coming from. I am sorry to have referred to you as a "vandal" -- without knowing your rationale it looked kindof like you were just making gratuitous deletions, as if lisps other than Common Lisp were not worthy of being mentioned on the ALU Wiki. I spoke too strongly, please accept my apologies. I do agree with you that we should find some way to keep implementations of different dialects seperate for easier access and browsing. Someone else has split up the Implementation page by dialect. I think this could be a reasonable solution. I also suggested in my first post above that perhaps we need seperate pages for implementations of each Lisp dialect. Perhaps if we did that then the Implementation page could become simply a catalog of links to dialect-specific implementation pages.

Please think this over, by working together as a community and discussing these things we can make this a wiki that works for all of us, rather than a bunch of people unilaterally editing eachother to suit the whims of the moment (I'm as guilty of this as the next person -- not trying to point fingers).

I look forward to continuing to work together with you. Let's make this wiki the most useful Lisp resource we can.

The Management 02-Sep-05

--

Dear The Management: thanks for your apologies. But I was not offended, just surprised.

I also agree that the current grouping of implementations by dialect in the Implementation page is reasonable, as your suggestions of separate pages.

I am willing to work together. I don't mind changes by someone who takes responsibility for them and signs with his/her real name. That's why I am perplexed by the proliferation of anonymous posters such as foo, The Management and the many Anonymous edits (see the change logs).

I'm not sure this is good or bad, but it's definitely different from the collaborative style of other CLiki sites, where anonymous posters are mostly spammers.

Paolo Amoroso -- September 3, 2005

--

Dear Paolo: I think we are in agreement that the current layout of the Implementation page is suitable for the time being. As far as taking responsibility, I question how appropriate it is on a wiki.

Seems to me that part of the spirit of a wiki is to get away from the cult of personality, and using null names is a good way to do that. Part of what I was trying to convey in The Management is that on a wiki I think it shouldn't really matter who wrote what, and opinions that seem authoritative (as for instance, anything signed by "The Management" might appear authoritative on first glance) really rest on no authority at all -- therefore they should be evaluated solely on their own merits and not "who" wrote them.

Nobody owns content on a wiki, and the best wiki content is usually written and edited by many nameless contributers, each incrementally improving upon the last. And if nobody owns it, then whats the sense of putting names on it? If you put your name on something it gives you a sense of ownership, and then that could lead to feelings of resentment when someone goes and edits it. In my opinion, edits to a wiki should be made with a sense of the best interests of the community and not of a particular person or group of people.

It is unfortunate that spammers have made such an idealistic approach less tenable; and in fact our upcoming addition of a registered user system will do much to destroy these ideals. Yet I still feel there is a place for "un-branded" content on wikis, and I hope that it does not completely go away. Content posted anonymously should not be looked down upon, as if someone needs to take responsibility for something in order for it to be valuable. Content should rest on its own merits. Spam is spam no matter who signs their name on it, and valuable content is still valuable even when you can't know who produced it.

On the other hand I can understand how it can be frustrating to engage in a dialogue with somebody without knowing who they are (or even how many people they are). So for the sake of discussion, I am Daniel Finster. But as "Anonymous", or "The Management", I can be anybody, and anybody can be me, without getting into messy identity conflicts. So don't expect me to stop signing my edits in this way (and don't assume that edits signed by such names are me! _We Can Be Anyone_). -- Cordially yours, The Management -- 04-Sep-05

Broken link : MyLisp, by James Ladd, is now called HyperLisp (whether it is the same project or not is not very clear); it's still claims to be written in Assembler). The old link is no longer working; go now to Hyperserve home (the site is brand new and does not contain download links for Hyperlisp up to today). -- G. Bernard, 26-Dec-07