|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: xahleexahlee Date: Aug 20, 2008 11:47
On Aug 20, 10:43 am, namekuseijin gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 20, 2:55 am, Scott Burson gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't tried it, but it looks interesting.
>
> Whoa! Looks mighty fine to me! :D
>
> http://liskell.org/fifteen-minute-tour
>
> The syntax and semantics look like a nice mix of Scheme and Haskell.
> I the ease of defining ADTs:
>
> (defdata Point3DType
> (Point3D Rational Rational Rational))
>
> and pattern matching on function definition without destructuring-bind
> or other verbose macro workaround:
> (define (distance3D (Point3D x y z)) ...
|
| Show full article (7.78Kb) |
|
| | 10 Comments |
|
|
Author: namekuseijinnamekuseijin Date: Aug 20, 2008 13:28
On Aug 20, 3:47 pm, "xah...@ gmail.com" gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 20, 10:43 am, namekuseijin gmail.com> wrote:>> Who knows, perhaps it attracts even more interest than Haskell or Lisp
>> alone... now Arc has some tough competition! :P
>
> Arc is one of the despicable worthless shit there is.
Good that my little sarcasm prompted such inspired response from
you. ;)
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Daniel PittsDaniel Pitts Date: Aug 24, 2008 08:25
> Arc is one of the despicable worthless shit there is.
>
> Arc is the type of shit that when some person becomes famous for his
> achivement in some area, who began to sell all sort of shit and
> visions just because he can, and people will buy it.
That might be true, but I'd love it if you expounded on why you believe
that? I don't have a lot of lisp experience, so I need someone to
highlight facts about why Arc is bad comparatively.
Thanks.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: KennyKenny Date: Aug 24, 2008 08:43
Daniel Pitts wrote:
>> Arc is one of the despicable worthless shit there is.
>>
>> Arc is the type of shit that when some person becomes famous for his
>> achivement in some area, who began to sell all sort of shit and
>> visions just because he can, and people will buy it.
>
> That might be true, but I'd love it if you expounded on why you believe
> that? I don't have a lot of lisp experience, so I need someone to
> highlight facts about why Arc is bad comparatively.
PG bet the ranch on terser code at all costs, including all sorts of
whacky syntax that is so whacky bits of it conflict and cannot be used
in combination. It was starting to look like Python when I left town.
And of course the single namespace is a disaster. Oh, and the absence of
an OO package.
kt
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Pascal J. BourguignonPascal J. Bourguignon Date: Aug 24, 2008 10:04
Daniel Pitts virtualinfinity.net> writes:
>> Arc is one of the despicable worthless shit there is.
>> Arc is the type of shit that when some person becomes famous for his
>> achivement in some area, who began to sell all sort of shit and
>> visions just because he can, and people will buy it.
> That might be true, but I'd love it if you expounded on why you
> believe that? I don't have a lot of lisp experience, so I need
> someone to highlight facts about why Arc is bad comparatively.
As little lisp experience you may have, you have more than Xah.
Asking for advice to Xah in lisp matters (and probably in any other
matter), is like asking for financial advice to the first tramp you
meet.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: xahleexahlee Date: Aug 24, 2008 15:49
On 2008-08-24, Daniel Pitts wrote:
>> Arc is one of the despicable worthless shit there is.
>
>> Arc is the type of shit that when some person becomes famous for his
>> achivement in some area, who began to sell all sort of shit and
>> visions just because he can, and people will buy it.
>
> That might be true, but I'd love it if you expounded on why you believe
> that? I don't have a lot of lisp experience, so I need someone to
> highlight facts about why Arc is bad comparatively.
i haven't actually used arc. My opinion of it is based on reading Paul
Graham's essays about his idea of some “100 year language” and
subsequent lisper's discussions on it this year here (most are highly
critical). Also, Wikipedia info gives some insight too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_(programming_language)
Paul's essay:
“The Hundred-Year Language”
http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html
|
| Show full article (5.57Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AliAli Date: Aug 24, 2008 18:13
I believe he meant "timeless". Timeless might imply that it was very
important to provide a decent language for encoding algorithms,
and not so much to the initial size of libraries at year 0. Whether or
not the language is great for encoding algorithms (or any other
timeless qualities) is largely matter of opinion, as you have stated
previously.
>> there are all sort of problems rendering the term or notion almost useless.
This page may be of use, http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html,
although I'm guessing you've already read it and maybe even have an
essay for it.
In fact, I wouldn't go looking for a dictionary style definition,
since he used the word "hacker" to convey what he thought a hacker
was, so his article on "great hackers" would be very relevant:
http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html
Those language qualities you listed do seem to be a good measure for a
good language though.
It seems to me that Arc has the first 2 qualities but not the third.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: gavinogavino Date: Sep 3, 2008 19:00
On Aug 20, 11:47 am, "xah...@ gmail.com" gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 20, 10:43 am, namekuseijin gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Aug 20, 2:55 am, Scott Burson gmail.com> wrote:>
>
>>> I haven't tried it, but it looks interesting.
>
>> Whoa! Looks mighty fine to me! :D
>
>
>> The syntax and semantics look like a nice mix of Scheme and Haskell.
>> I the ease of defining ADTs:
>
>> (defdata Point3DType
>> (Point3D Rational Rational Rational)) ...
|
| Show full article (8.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: gavinogavino Date: Sep 3, 2008 19:04
> Daniel Pitts virtualinfinity.net> writes:>>> Arc is one of the despicable worthless shit there is.
>>> Arc is the type of shit that when some person becomes famous for his
>>> achivement in some area, who began to sell all sort of shit and
>>> visions just because he can, and people will buy it.
>> That might be true, but I'd love it if you expounded on why you
>> believe that? I don't have a lot of lisp experience, so I need
>> someone to highlight facts about why Arc is bad comparatively.
>
> As little lisp experience you may have, you have more than Xah.
>
> Asking for advice to Xah in lisp matters (and probably in any other
> matter), is like asking for financial advice to the first tramp you
> meet.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ ...
|
| Show full article (1.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: gavinogavino Date: Sep 3, 2008 19:15
On Aug 25, 3:16 am, "xah...@ gmail.com" gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 24, 6:13 pm, Ali gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I believe he meant "timeless". Timeless might imply that it was very
>> important to provide a decent language for encoding algorithms,
>> and not so much to the initial size of libraries at year 0. Whether or
>> not the language is great for encoding algorithms (or any other
>> timeless qualities) is largely matter of opinion, as you have stated
>> previously.
>
>>>> there are all sort of problems rendering the term or notion almost useless.
>
>
> i red the jargon file, perhaps some 70%% of it, in late 1990s online.
>
> At the time, i appreciate it very much.
> ...
|
| Show full article (5.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
