> Thanks, I'm glad it's useful.

Every extra person working toward unity rather than division helps turn
the tide.

> It seems the main things missing are the SPS implementation and the
> MITRE/VLISP papers, happy to add those to the site, I'll do that soon.

Great. Please notify me when it's done.

> I understand and agree in principle.  In the case of Pre-Scheme (as with
> Scheme), there's a long history and academic legacy which is important
> to preserve accurately and respectfully, and that's been my intent from
> the beginning.
>
> As for the future, I've secured a grant from NLnet to work on
> "resurrecting" the Pre-Scheme compiler, porting it from Scheme 48 to
> R7RS and extending/revising the language with the objective of realizing
> its potential as a modern low-level functional/systems language.  This
> will result in a good deal of new documentation focused specifically on
> the port, with a re-organization of the landing page to highlight
> progress updates and funnel newcomers towards a "getting started" guide.
> This would demote the historical information to a smaller call-out,
> moving the bulk of that content to a separate page.
>
> My concern is how best to balance the requirements of promoting my work
> under the grant, while also presenting a neutral view of other
> implementations which are currently all historical.  If this change in
> focus would come across as unfairly biased, it might be better to keep a
> separate page on scheme.org.  I'd be happy to move the historical
> information to that page and link to it as the authoritative source for
> Pre-Scheme as a whole.

Congratulations on scoring a Scheme grant! Sounds good. Listed at
https://nlnet.nl/project/Pre-Scheme/.

I'm sympathetic to every issue you raise. This is analogous to
presenting Scheme projects under Scheme.org; while we must be fair, it's
also true that some are more active, more comprehensive, and more
approachable.

Perhaps we can try to solve the presentation problem concurrently for
both PreScheme and Scheme implementations in general. I suggest we keep
the two domains separate for now, but keep in contact and compare notes.
Perhaps we will discover a form of website that solves the problems
naturally, and if so, we can merge the sites. How does this sound?

If it doesn't pan out, I'm still happy to move content between the two
sites as needed to obtain a result that is satisfactory to all.

> It would make sense to have an SCSH page with an overview of its history
> and a list of references/projects as we've done for Pre-Scheme.

After replying I realized that https://scsh.net/ is in good condition.
Code was committed this year at
https://github.com/scheme/scsh/commits/master/, so perhaps they are
still open to improving the site too.

The only other repositories I can find are CVS at
https://sourceforge.net/projects/scsh/. Is this where you sourced the
stuff at https://sourceforge.net/projects/scsh/? If they are not
interested in maintaining it, we can keep it in the Conservatory. It
would be good to get everyone on the same page about what to host where.

> There are some really cool projects in that collection, particularly SUnet,
> Commander S, and the CSAN.

Yes. I was just reading about Commander S a while back. It would be
great to have it running again.