Comments on: Arc, first impressions

By: Tim Lovell-Smith

Tim Lovell-Smith — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:53:37 +0000

Re: 'Odd assignment rules for lists and hash tables.'

If you think about it, hash table lookup (foo bar) IS a function application, i.e. computation of a mapping f(x). It's just different from most other functions in its method of implementation/specification, with e.g. being able to use = to modify the mapping.

By: John Cowan

John Cowan — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:41:57 +0000

1. The overly short names. If PG wants APL (or J, K, etc.) he knows where to find them.

2. The irrationality and randomness of the names Scheme fixed this in R2RS.

3. The invincible ignorance about Unicode.

4. The belief (also ignorant) that hygienic macros don't matter. (Hygiene is to macros as lexical binding is to functions -- I suppose we should be glad that Arc doesn't revert to dynamic binding.)

There are probably more, but I stopped looking at this point.

By: The Arc Debate | LispCast

The Arc Debate | LispCast — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:12:19 +0000

[...] Arc’s Out Lisp at Light Speed: Arc Brevity Zach’s Journal - Like a Bi-Metallic Strip Drinkable Chicken » Arc, first impressions (cadr life): Lazy Lists in Arc smuglispweeny: Arc!Cells: It’s Alive!!! smuglispweeny: [...]

By: ndanger.organism :: blog :: Arc: the blogosphere rages

ndanger.organism :: blog :: Arc: the blogosphere rages — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:04:45 +0000

[...] Arc, first impressions: Hans is fair and balanced [...]

By: Deinst

Deinst — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:26:09 +0000

@Hans: The major feature that arc fails to take from modern scheme systems is a sane module system. I find this surprising, given that arc is built atop mzscheme which has a simple (from a user point of view), solid module system. I suspect that pg would argue that a module system would interfere with the hack and slash philosophy that arc is supposed to engender, but I would argue that any language with macros needs a module system that can give a macro writer the guarantees outlined inin http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/26833/http:zSzzSzwww.cs.utah.eduzSzpltzSzpublicationszSzmacromod.pdf/flatt02composable.pdf

This is one of the reasons I use mzscheme instead of common lisp. I'd love a language that had a good module system, macros and access to system threads, and would willingly sacrifice continuations and hygenic macros.

By: Hans Nowak

Hans Nowak — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:14:25 +0000

@John: I am not all that familiar with the history of Scheme (yet); can you give a few examples of things Arc is doing that are (in your opinion) wrong?

By: Hans Nowak

Hans Nowak — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:13:04 +0000

@she: Well, it depends on your outlook. Assuming by "such a language" you meant "a Lisp variant", there are various reasons why people would be interesting in learning or trying it, even if they already know a dynamic language like Python or Ruby. Maybe they come from a mathematical background and find a Lisp more appealing than a language with more traditional syntax (although there are functional languages, like OCaml and Haskell, that fit the bill better). Or maybe they keep running into Python/Ruby's limitations and want more flexibility. E.g. in the Arc tutorial there are a few things that languages like Python just cannot do. (Although other Lisps can... this is why most Lispers seem decidedly underwhelmed.)

By: she

she — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:06:52 +0000

The biggest problem is - someone that knows a lot of ruby or python, why would he ever go and try such a language?

By: John Cowan

John Cowan — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:31:04 +0000

Arc: not back to the future, but forward to the past. It basically takes all the hard-earned lessons of Scheme right up through R6RS and throws them in the trash.