Agreed re: libraries. I expect that libraries might start showing up once/if folks feel that pg hasn't simply left entirely as it appears currently. Typical catch-22 - who wants to write libraries for a language that might stagnate or die?
The boring stuff, like building nice parameterized SQL queries and getting back the data from SQL. Launching a system process in parallel and keeping track of its status (and potentially aborting it if e.g. it takes too long)
If we do all of the boring stuff in a clean, concise way, that makes everything easy, with the option of adding macros on top to boot, the boring stuff might well become fun, or at the very least, painless.
Some times ago I started a GTK+ binding, now "paused". It's more boring than I thought initially. If you wish look at it for a starting point (file gtk.arc in Anarki). I now think a binding towards tcl/tk would look nicer and easier to use, though.
These would require a standard FFI system. Or else we would end up writing Anarki specific code. Such a fork would be a real Arc killer (in the bad sense of the term).
sacado built an FFI on Anarki.... well forks are generally bad but with PG asleep until october or so .... (maybe he's getting ready for oktoberfest or something ^^)
That's true. Programming languages take years to evolve, not months. Moreover, Arc is in the language design phase. As of today, the syntax and the semantics of the language are more important than libraries. For example, I'd like to see something like Kenny Tilton's cells (http://github.com/stefano/cells-doc/) nicely integrated within the core language.
Is it in the language design phase? Does anyone know if this is in fact true, and if so, what is currently being designed? The impression I have is that it just sort of stopped.
I would suppose that since a) this language is not used in anything "important" yet, and b) it's open source; yes, it can be in the design phase. I should think that the design phase persists until, for some reason, the language becomes "formalized", or until it is impossible to change anything major without ruining things for a lot of people. At that point you can still "design" the language, but since it has a generally understood "style" and so forth, it won't be able to change too much unless you make a whole new language.
What do you want to be designed? One of the major problems about "designing" a new lisp is that, since anyone can "do it" in their spare time, they don't see the point. Maybe they're right. ^^
Sorry for all of the quotes; it looks kind of funny, I'm sure.
