Talk:Common Lisp/External libraries

Other things to consider: --VictorAnyakin (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC) --VictorAnyakin (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Databases
 * raw SQL clients
 * Object stores (elephant, etc.)
 * ORM
 * etc.
 * Web frameworks
 * Weblocks
 * etc.
 * Other GUI (cl-gtk, cells-gtk, etc.)
 * Logging (the libraries used to log debug messages)
 * XML processing

I would very much like to put a good 3d/2d graphics library in here, but I don't know of one that is good enough. I would like to choose something like cl-sdl, lispbuilder, PAL, or maybe even cl-opengl. The only thing is that except for cl-opengl (which I believe is unmaintained and almost certainly not up to date with the currently changing OpenGL spec) I cannot build any of these on this OS X computer that I am working from. It seems that limited portability should exclude them from this list. Anyone have better ideas out there. I sucks not having eye candy, but it is probably better if this section isn't shoddy.

--Zvsmith (talk) 3:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure of what should be placed here. Most of the stuff here, (exception of Ltk), are pure CL libraries. Should we stick to that? What about bindings like CL-OpenGL, CL-GD, or CL-Cairo? These are pretty useful, it seems, and I tend to lean toward including them. I just don't want to break suit just yet so I will delay that for now.

Also, these libraries are all FOSS libraries, should this be the way is stays? I like FOSS probably more than most, but what about the general public? I certainly no much more about FOSS libraries as I restrict myself from using proprietary ones.

Also, I added Drakma. Drakma, however, already has some pretty good documentation on Edi's website. Seems like a waste of time duplicating that. CL-PPCRE is kind of in the same boat, but I can at least picture a simpler hands on approach to introducing it than what is in Edi's documentation. I can also imagine some examples that could get peoples gray matter stirring.

I guess, when it comes down to it, maybe less is more here. For right now, maybe we should focus on doing a relatively few things very well. Otherwise it seems that we a destined to end up like the CLiki, 100's of libraries but little info on usage or purpose. This means that we are going to, at some point, have to start getting picky about what belongs here. I don't think it is time to be picky just yet.

--Zvsmith (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)