Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
1 point by shader 5675 days ago | link | parent

What killer libraries do y'all think would make arc interesting/useful enough to move beyond novelty?


3 points by almkglor 5675 days ago | link

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)

-----

1 point by shader 5675 days ago | link

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.

Which boring thing would you start with?

-----

2 points by tokipin 5675 days ago | link

GUI imo. wxWidgets binding wouldn't be bad

-----

1 point by stefano 5674 days ago | link

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.

-----

1 point by stefano 5674 days ago | link

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).

-----

3 points by almkglor 5674 days ago | link

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 ^^)

-----

1 point by stefano 5674 days ago | link

Maybe he is preparing an Arc community summit at the oktoberfest? :)

-----

2 points by bOR_ 5675 days ago | link

If rails is to be considered the killer library of ruby, it took five years for it to show up.. so we have some time left ;)

-----

2 points by stefano 5674 days ago | link

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.

-----

2 points by lojic 5674 days ago | link

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.

-----

2 points by shader 5674 days ago | link

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.

-----