As a beginner to lisp, I have always been bothered by the lack of standardization - especially in terms of libraries.
For example, a couple of weeks back, there was an article about a python-based tool on HN (I forget which). There was a lot of opinion, however was generally about BeautifulSoup vs lxml.
Coming to CL, I dont even know where to begin for XML parsing (http://www.cliki.net/XML). Which is why, it seems like black magic when people make amazing software (quantz, postabon) .
I just get too intimidated on where to begin... it is similar to the javascript library fights that keep erupting on comp.lang.js : you ask about one and are made to feel like you should have chosen another.
As a beginner just grab the XML lib which is easiest to install and looks comfortable to use. If it doesn't work out try another one.
I really don't get all the complaints in this thread about the lack of a central library repository. How hard is it to use Google? Libraries aren't suddenly bad because they're not from Lib Grand Central.
In other languages, Perl specifically, I've tried libraries from CPAN that were total shit and then I googled around and grabbed a better one from someone's homepage.
Perhaps it's possible to get lucky and find good libraries using nothing but Google and patience, but I'm baffled that anyone would deny the value of something like CPAN.
CPAN's structure enforces good practices: (e.g., tests, docs, bug tracking).
CPAN provides not one but two excellent search pages. It also contains many reviews, and makes it trivial to see the source of any library or app before you download it.
it goes beyond CPAN - it would have been nice to have a "batteries-included" version that packs in most useful libraries (like Python's Image, lxml, etc libraries).
The very argument that choice > standardization is something I dont get - even in Rails, you have the choice of not using the default templating engine, JavaScript framework, etc. But it doesnt mean that they dont package it in anyway. This accelerates adoption, since it gets out of your way - and later when you mature as a developer, you can of course customize it wildly.
It may or may not also have the happy side-effect that the quality of the packaged libraries increase, because of a much larger user-base. I'd much rather that people fork mature libraries than hack the one-millionth version of an XML library that just does 2 things.
I'm not denying the value but I do think too much value is put in it. I certainly wouldn't use the lack of something like CPAN as an argument not to learn an otherwise fine language.
For example, a couple of weeks back, there was an article about a python-based tool on HN (I forget which). There was a lot of opinion, however was generally about BeautifulSoup vs lxml.
Coming to CL, I dont even know where to begin for XML parsing (http://www.cliki.net/XML). Which is why, it seems like black magic when people make amazing software (quantz, postabon) .
I just get too intimidated on where to begin... it is similar to the javascript library fights that keep erupting on comp.lang.js : you ask about one and are made to feel like you should have chosen another.