Sounds like a great recipe for creating a ten year language, like Perl.
Arc is, after all, a philosophical exercise at guessing what a hundred year language might look like (though clearly still falling well short of that goal)
Do you really think you're going to be calling a C++ function through an FFI in 100 years?
That being said, you are absolutely right that a lack of focus on libraries greatly hurts arc's chances at widespread success. I'm not sure if there is any good way to solve this dilemma, though, in the near future.
> Do you really think you're going to be calling a C++ function through an FFI in 100 years?
I think I will be dead in 100 years.
> I'm not sure if there is any good way to solve this dilemma
The only solution is to write libraries. Take some problem you think is generic enough for a library and write code to solve it. I've already written in Arc a library to download files through HTTP and a simple XML parser. They're not complete, but they're something. Talking about libraries' shortage won't solve the problem. We have to write code.
Do you really think you're going to be calling a C++ function through an FFI in 100 years?
I don't think we can imagine how we'll be programming in 100 years - Arc is a bit too easy to imagine - and was just about imagined nearly a half-century ago.
How would you design a language if you knew that you had >2^50 the processing power you have today to compile/interpret it?
