Multiple mailing lists (was: GSOC | Extending Common Lisp support)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Multiple mailing lists (was: GSOC | Extending Common Lisp support)

Charles Turner-4
On 1 July 2012 22:09, Per Bothner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Perhaps we need multiple lists.  What do people think?  How many people
> are bothered by excessive messages?  Perhaps we need a separate "announce"
> list for major changes and features?

The following format seems sensible and popular:

announce - major changes and features
users - for help & discussion using the system
dev - for people interested in the actual development of the system

Charlie.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple mailing lists (was: GSOC | Extending Common Lisp support)

Дмитрий-46
> Perhaps we need multiple lists. What do people think? How many people
> are bothered by excessive messages? Perhaps we need a separate "announce"
> list for major changes and features?
Maybe it's a stupid proposition, but is it possible to have a separate mailing list for Kawa Common Lisp and for other aspects of Kawa (most notably, Kawa Scheme)?

I am not really interested in Common Lisp, I mostly use Scheme and nothing else. (Actually I don't understand why bother with Common Lisp when Scheme is so nice. ^^")

--
Yours sincerely,
Dmitry Kushnariov
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple mailing lists

Helmut Eller-2
* <8B@89 [2012-07-01 22:15] writes:

> (Actually I don't understand why bother with Common Lisp
> when Scheme is so nice. ^^")

I also think that it would be a good idea to separate Scheme from Lisp
as there is plenty of evidence that those two communities don't get
along very well.

Helmut

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple mailing lists (was: GSOC | Extending Common Lisp support)

Alcides Flores Pineda
In reply to this post by Charles Turner-4
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:16:56 +0100
> Charles Turner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 1 July 2012 22:09, Per Bothner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Perhaps we need multiple lists.  What do people think?  How many
> > people are bothered by excessive messages?  Perhaps we need a
> > separate "announce" list for major changes and features?
>
> The following format seems sensible and popular:
>
> announce - major changes and features
> users - for help & discussion using the system
> dev - for people interested in the actual development of the system
>
> Charlie.

IMHO I fully agree, I belive that having separate lists for developers
and users would be the best, I've just deleted from my inbox more than
150 messages from the "GSOC | Extending Common Lisp" thread as Im NOT a
Kawa developer but just an enthusiast user.

Greetings.

Alcides Flores.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Multiple mailing lists

blewis-3
In reply to this post by Helmut Eller-2
There is plenty of evidence that certain Scheme advocates don't get along with certain Common Lisp advocates.  However, it's difficult to measure how well "communities" get along, because those who do get along don't make as much noise.


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Helmut Eller
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 1:32 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Multiple mailing lists

* <8B@89 [2012-07-01 22:15] writes:

> (Actually I don't understand why bother with Common Lisp
> when Scheme is so nice. ^^")

I also think that it would be a good idea to separate Scheme from Lisp
as there is plenty of evidence that those two communities don't get
along very well.

Helmut

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple mailing lists

Charles Turner-4
On 2 July 2012 13:59, Bruce Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There is plenty of evidence that certain Scheme advocates don't get along with certain Common Lisp advocates.  However, it's difficult to measure how well "communities" get along, because those who do get along don't make as much noise.

I haven't received any death threats for working on CL so far, so I'm
not sure how specific this point is. It is clear that most of the
people on this list are here for Kawa's Scheme implementation. So
maybe the hypothetical "users" list could represent that mass, and we
could have a separate "fringe" list for all the other languages in
Kawa. The "dev" list wouldn't need to be so discriminating, as I'd
posit most of the developers here are interested in the development of
all the languages, not just Scheme.

Charlie.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple mailing lists (was: GSOC | Extending Common Lisp support)

Weiqi Gao
In reply to this post by Charles Turner-4
I'm an interested observer of both the use and development aspects of Kawa.  I'm not bothered by the recent GSOC traffic.  It's a short term phenomena (the S stands for Summer.)

I'm not bothered by the Common List discussion either.  After all, Kawa claims to be a multi-language framework and Common List is one of the language supported.

If this list is to split into multiple lists, I suspect I'd be subscribing to all of them.  So whether the list is split or not really doesn't impact me that much.

--
Weiqi Gao

On Jul 1, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Charles Turner wrote:

> On 1 July 2012 22:09, Per Bothner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Perhaps we need multiple lists.  What do people think?  How many people
>> are bothered by excessive messages?  Perhaps we need a separate "announce"
>> list for major changes and features?
>
> The following format seems sensible and popular:
>
> announce - major changes and features
> users - for help & discussion using the system
> dev - for people interested in the actual development of the system
>
> Charlie.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Multiple mailing lists

Jamison Hope
In reply to this post by Charles Turner-4
On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Charles Turner wrote:

> On 2 July 2012 13:59, Bruce Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> There is plenty of evidence that certain Scheme advocates don't get  
>> along with certain Common Lisp advocates.  However, it's difficult  
>> to measure how well "communities" get along, because those who do  
>> get along don't make as much noise.
>
> I haven't received any death threats for working on CL so far, so I'm
> not sure how specific this point is. It is clear that most of the
> people on this list are here for Kawa's Scheme implementation. So
> maybe the hypothetical "users" list could represent that mass, and we
> could have a separate "fringe" list for all the other languages in
> Kawa. The "dev" list wouldn't need to be so discriminating, as I'd
> posit most of the developers here are interested in the development of
> all the languages, not just Scheme.

I'm mostly staying out of this discussion, but I offer the following
points.

Re one list vs. several:

- By having a single list, all subscribers are exposed to all traffic;
   clearly this is not everyone's preference, so multiple lists would  
be a
   Good Thing.
- OTOH having multiple lists increases the possibility that you'll miss
   a message that you'd want -- maybe because you didn't subscribe to  
one
   of the lists thinking it wouldn't interest you, or maybe because
   somebody sent the message to the wrong list (which happens ALL THE  
TIME).
- So the ideal is probably N lists, for some *small* N > 1. Your
   suggestion for the conventional announce/users/dev trio sounds about
   right.

Re (supposed or real) inter-language hostility and language-specific
lists:

- It says right on the tin that Kawa is a multi-language framework, so
   I doubt many Kawa users are the hard-core dogmatic "My Lisp Is Great,
   Yours Is Stupid" types; those people are more likely to stick to a
   project that's only implementing the one they like. [Side note: are
   there any other projects striving to implement both Scheme and Common
   Lisp? Guile does ELisp, which is close, but are there others?]

- Apart from special occasions like GSOC, list traffic is typically
   going to be roughly proportional to the popularity of the language
   being discussed. So, the Scheme users typically won't have to put
   up with too much CL or ELisp or BRL -- hi, Bruce! -- traffic even if
   they stay on the same list. (The converse is that the smug CL weenies
   are stuck wading through gobs of Scheme nonsense.)

- Exposure to multiple languages makes you a better programmer, so
   keeping all non-Scheme traffic off of the main list is doing the
   Schemers a disservice (and likewise for Lispers and Scheme traffic).
   I'm only partially kidding.


-Jamie

--
Jamison Hope
The PTR Group
www.theptrgroup.com