Edi Weitz <spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> The CLHS at alu.org is at version 4.0 while the one at lispworks.com
> is at 7.0, presumably fixing a couple of issues with earlier versions.
The issues were not major (and none are technical), but yes, there are
some fixes, including a better index.
I know people prefer version 4 because it had the Java widget in the
index that lets you type to it. I removed that in later versions
because in the early days was unreliable, and in modern times some
people have it disabled for security reasons. (And I find it's
usually faster to click through to a name using the index or permuted
index than to type something, even for me who is a pretty good typist,
so the Java widget seemed less good to me. It's prone to not finding
things if you make a typo, too, which is an issue the clickable
indexes mostly don't have. No, the clickable index doesn't fix the
LOGBITP problem, but neither does the Java widget.)
The newer v7 has an enhanced master index, including indexing of the
format operations and the sharpsign ops, if I recall. That alone makes
it a very bad thing to be continuing to reference v4 because a lot
of people have a lot of trouble finding these.
Also, I got a complaint from someone who was dyslexic who said that a
a partial "workaround" for that problem is to view things in high
contrast, and who pleaded with me not to put it on a gray background.
That's why it's on white these days, although it may just look like an
artistic choice--certainly there's very little text-on-gray in the
modern world compared to when the web was new. I do personally find
the white background easier to read.
And the CLHS at the ALU web site uses the old (longer) file naming,
the practical implication of which is that it increases the likelihood
that URL references will overrun a single text line, though it was
made for another reason--to allow service from some Macintosh file
system or another, which had a filename limit that was one character
off from *nix (31 instead of 32, if I remember right) causing a couple
of file names not to fit. In the process of the fix, I made all the
filenames DOS 8.3 compliant so someone could host it from any OS.
> It also makes clearer that (the predecessors of) LispWorks - and not
> the ALU - paid for the generation of the HyperSpec, own the rights to
> it, and made it publicly available.
LispWorks Ltd. presumably had to pay to acquire the assets they now
enjoy, of course, so I think it's right and proper to say they paid
for it. Also worth noting is that they have paid subsequent to that
to do some care and feeding on that current doc, a bit in money but
mostly in time and effort (which I'm sure to them translates to
op****tunity cost, and hence to money, too), not just to do the
upgrades but also to do the QA that goes into make sure that the
upgrades are of good quality and that in attempting to fix one thing
they don't break another.
I do agree that having the site continue to point through to Harlequin
is not fair to the people that made it, though. Unfair does not mean
illegal. But there are people (myself include at times, as you know)
who think there is a crew of folks out there trying to actively assure
that no one who makes a commercial software investment in the world
ever succeeds, and who exploit every op****tunity to commercially
injure any business that doesn't just give things away. I am NOT
suggesting that that's what happening here--I don't know the
motivation. But I certainly think it is consistent with that, and prone
to confuse some people, and as such is inappropriate from an organization
that seeks to represent the community.
I have said in the past and I will say again: The correct solution to
alu.org remaining vendor-neutral is for it to ALSO host other vendors'
do***entation (e.g., Franz's alternate spec) if it wants to do that,
and to let individuals choose which to reference. Indeed, it should
also feel free to host both v4 and v7 of CLHS, for people who like the
old lookup widget thing if that's the issue, and again to let the
individual people decide which to reference by adding /v7/ or /v4/ in
the URL above the corresponding CLHS root filename. But it does as it
stands have the vague look of something that is trying hard to not
acknowledge that Harlequin is no longer there and is trying hard not
to accept that LispWorks is a viable vendor, making money, trying to
solicit customers, and paying their dues in the community by offering
not only the continued availability of CLHS but also other "free" (no
not GPL, which I don't agree has a lock on that word no matter what
they say, but certainly no-cost free-as-in-beer and quite usable for
some purposes) Lisp.
So I join with Edi in publicly requesting that someone fix the ALU
web site.
|
