>>> I haven't tried it, but it looks interesting.
>> The syntax and semantics look like a nice mix of Scheme and Haskell.
>> I the ease of defining ADTs:
>
> 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.
>
> So, please don't mention arc. Mention Qi, NewLisp, Liskell instead.
> These are far more effort, dedication, earnestness, as well much more
> technical merits or social benefits, than dignitary's fame selling
> shits.
>
> Qi is great because it adds advanced functional features to lisp yet
> remain compatible with Common Lisp.
>
> Liskell is worth looking into because it is a experiment exploiting
> the the nested syntax, meanwhile brings in the semantics of a well
> developed functional lang.
>
> Qi and Liskell are very welcome, and non-trivial, addition to lisp
> communities that can help lispers get new insights.
>
> NewLisp is great because it is a earnest effort in modernizing lisp,
> breaking away the ~3 decades of traditions and thought patterns that
> are rooted in Common Lisp and Scheme. NewLisp's community is entirely
> distinct from CommonLisp/SchemeLisp, attracting much newer generation
> of hobbist and non-professional programers. NewLisp isn't one of the
> fashionable new lang created for the sake of new lang. It has been
> around more than a decade.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewLisphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi_(programming_language)
>
> I support Qi, NewLisp, Liskell. Please mention these in your
> socializing chats.
>
> Paul Graham, the author of Arc, of course have every right to create
> his lang just like anyone else, and even for the sole purpose of
> selling his name just because he can. And perhaps due to his past
> contribution in the lisp community, Arc might be successful and
> getting a lot users purely due to Paul's fame. However, please
> consider the real value of a new lang, from technical to social, and
> not as opposed to who's more famous. (for example, technical
> considerations can be such as what new functionality it brings, such
> as Qi, or what insight it might bring, such as Liskell. Social
> consideration can be such as whether it bring the ideas of lisp to
> entirely new segments of society, such as NewLisp.)
>
> See also:
>
> What Languages to
Hatehttp://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/language_to_hate.html
>
> plain text version follows:
> ----------------------------------
>
> What Languages to Hate
>
> Xah Lee, 2002-07-18
>
> Dear lisp comrades and other concerned parties,
>
> First, all languages have equal rights. Do not belittle other
> languages just because YOUR favorite language is a bit better in this
> aspect or that. Different people have different ideas and manners of
> perception. Ideas compete and thrive in all unexpected fashions.
> Societies improve, inventions progress. Lisp may be a first in this or
> that, or faster or flexibler, or higher level than other languages old
> and new, but then there are other languages the like of Mathematica &
> Haskell & Dylan et al which ridicule lisps in the same way lisp
> ridicule other languages.
>
> Just because YOU are used to more functional programing or love lots
> of parenthesis doesn't mean they are the only and best concepts. The
> so-called Object Oriented programing of Java fame, or the visual
> programing of Visual Basic fame, or the logic programing of Prolog
> fame, or the format-stable syntax of Python fame, or the “one line of
> Mathematica equals ten to one thousand lines of lisp” of _A New Kind
> Of Science_ fame... all are parts of healthy competing concepts,
> paradigms, or directions of growth.
>
> The way some of you deride other languages is like sneering
> heterogeneousness. If unchecked, soon you'll only have your sister to
> marry to. Cute, but you do not want incest to become the only sex.
> Next time your superiority complex makes you sneer at non-lisp or
> newfangled languages, remember this. It is diversity of ideas, that
> drives the welfare of progress.
>
> Now, there is one judgmental criterion, that if a language or computer
> technology fits it, then we not only should castigate at their
> missionaries, but persecute and harass the language to the harshest
> death. That is: utter sloppiness, irresponsibility, and lies. These
> things are often borne out of some student's homework or moron's dirty-
> work, harbored by “free” and wanton lies and personal fame, amassed
> thru ignorance.
>
> Of my short but diligent industrial unix computing experience since
> 1998, i have identified the following targets:
>
> * C (and consequences like csh, C++)
> * vi
> * Perl
> * MySQL
> * unix, unixism, and things grown out of unix. (languages,
> protocols, philosophies, expectations, movements)
>
> In our software industry, i like to define criminals as those who
> cause inordinate harm to society, not necessarily directly. Of the
> above things, some of their authors are not such criminals or are
> forgivable. While others, are hypocritical fantastic liers selfish to
> the core. When dealing with these self-promoting jolly lying humble
> humorous priests and their insidious superficially-harmless speeches,
> there should be no benefit of doubt. Tell them directly to stop their
> vicious lies. Do a face-off.
>
> As to their brain-washed followers for example the not-yet-hard-core
> unix, C, or Perl coders rampant in industry, try to snap them out of
> it. This you do by loudly snapping fingers in front of their face,
> making it sound like a ear piercing bang. Explain to them the utter
> stupidity of the things they are using, and the harm to their brain.
> IMPORTANT: _teach_, not _debate_ or _discuss_ or falling back into
> your philosophical deliberating indecisiveness. I've seen enough
> criticisms among learned programers or academicians on these, so i
> know you know what i'm talking about. When you see a unixer
> brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door. He has became a
> zombie who cannot be helped.
>
> There are other languages or technology, by itself technically are
> perhaps mediocre but at least is not a egregious irresponsible hack,
> therefore does not deserve scorn, but sometimes it comes with
> overwhelming popular outrageous lies (euphemized as hype). Java is a
> example. For this reason, it is equally deserving the harshest
> treatment. Any loud proponents of such should be immediately slapped
> in the mouth and kicked in the ass in no ambiguous ways.
>
> Summary: all languages have equal rights. However, those utterly
> SLOPPY and IRRESPONSIBLE HACKS with promoter's LIES should be severely
> punished. It is these, that cause computing industry inordinate harm.
> Meanwhile, it is wrong to haughtily criticize other languages just
> because they are not your cup of tea. Now, please remember this and go
> do society good.
>
> Xah
> ∑
http://xahlee.org/
>
> ☄
