Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
1 point by prestonbriggs 5266 days ago | link | parent

Got it, thanks.


2 points by ylando 5265 days ago | link

Why arc do not have a normal web page; See:

  http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
  http://www.python.org/
  http://www.perl.org/
  http://www.erlang.org/
  http://clojure.org/

-----

2 points by akkartik 5265 days ago | link

Because it's unfinished (and may remain so). See http://arclanguage.org and more recently http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1525323. No point sucking people in with a normal-looking webpage if the language isn't really ready for production use.

-----

1 point by evanrmurphy 5263 days ago | link

Could you talk about your decision to use it for Readwarp then? If Arc's not really ready for production use, might it still be a good choice for a certain minority of developers?

-----

2 points by akkartik 5263 days ago | link

Yeah, I'm not trying to say you shouldn't use it for production use :)

They're opposing perspectives. As a user of arc I'd throw it into production[1]. At the same time, from PG's perspective I'd want to be conservative about calling it production ready.

I suspect arc will never go out of 'alpha' no matter how mature it gets, just because PG and RTM will not enjoy having to provide support, or having to maintain compatibility.

[1] With some caveats: treat it as a white box, be prepared to hack on its innards, be prepared to dive into scheme and the FFI. And if you're saving state in flat files, be prepared for pain when going from 1 servers to 2.

Not all kinds of production are made the same.

-----