Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
language specification, sources or more detailed description?
Yuri.
On May 31, 3:19 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
> Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
> description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
> language specification, sources or more detailed description?
>
> Yuri.
If you'd like to try Arc, send an email to ······@paulgraham.com and
the'll notify you when there is something online to experiment with.
While you're waiting use Common Lisp.
On May 31, 3:51 pm, fireblade <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 3:19 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
> > Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
> > description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
> > language specification, sources or more detailed description?
>
> > Yuri.
>
> If you'd like to try Arc, send an email to ······@paulgraham.com and
> the'll notify you when there is something online to experiment with.
>
> While you're waiting use Common Lisp .
And that's what Graham is suggesting too.
When will Arc be done?
We're already using a version of it to write applications, but there
is no scheduled date for general release. If you want us to notify
when we release something, send mail to ······@paulgraham.com.
What should I use in the meantime?
See the Lisp FAQ.
http://www.paulgraham.com/lispfaq1.html
In the last episode, on Thursday 14 Sivan 5767 14:55, fireblade wrote:
> On May 31, 3:51 pm, fireblade <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 3:19 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
>> > Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
>> > description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
>> > language specification, sources or more detailed description?
>>
>> > Yuri.
>>
>> If you'd like to try Arc, send an email to ······@paulgraham.com and
>> the'll notify you when there is something online to experiment with.
>>
>> While you're waiting use Common Lisp .
>
Why does Paul Graham suggest using CL, when Arc is implemented on top of
Scheme?
Or to put it another way, if he prefers CL why implement Arc on top of
Scheme?
Jeff
On May 31, 8:00 am, Jeff Rollin <··············@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the last episode, on Thursday 14 Sivan 5767 14:55, fireblade wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 3:51 pm, fireblade <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 31, 3:19 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
> >> > Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
> >> > description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
> >> > language specification, sources or more detailed description?
>
> >> > Yuri.
>
> >> If you'd like to try Arc, send an email to ······@paulgraham.com and
> >> the'll notify you when there is something online to experiment with.
>
> >> While you're waiting use Common Lisp .
>
> Why does Paul Graham suggest using CL, when Arc is implemented on top of
> Scheme?
>
> Or to put it another way, if he prefers CL why implement Arc on top of
> Scheme?
Well, Paul Graham doesn't usually post here, so any answer you get is
going to be speculative.
That said, one can prefer different language implementations for
different purposes. Maybe he doesn't prefer Scheme, but likes the PLT
Scheme implementation for the purposes he has in mind for Arc. Or
maybe Scheme has a couple of characteristics that make implementation
of some particular piece of Arc much more convenient than it otherwise
would be. I assume that for him, PLT Scheme is a low-level platform,
and, that being the case, isn't necessarily chosen for its resemblance
to the language he would prefer to use day-to-day.
Once upon a time I worked day-to-day in Dylan, when it was still
clearly a dialect of Lisp, complete with lots of parentheses (that
version of Dylan is still my favorite programming language, by the
way). It was built on Common Lisp, but the language itself was more
like Scheme+CLOS. So if it was so much like Scheme, why didn't the
implementors build it on Scheme? Well, because, if you take into
consideration all the factors involved, not just the language
specification, building it on Macintosh Common Lisp was the easiest
way to do it.
·····@evins.net wrote:
> On May 31, 8:00 am, Jeff Rollin <··············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In the last episode, on Thursday 14 Sivan 5767 14:55, fireblade wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On May 31, 3:51 pm, fireblade <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 31, 3:19 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
>>>>>Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
>>>>>description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
>>>>>language specification, sources or more detailed description?
>>
>>>>>Yuri.
>>
>>>>If you'd like to try Arc, send an email to ······@paulgraham.com and
>>>>the'll notify you when there is something online to experiment with.
>>
>>>>While you're waiting use Common Lisp .
>>
>>Why does Paul Graham suggest using CL, when Arc is implemented on top of
>>Scheme?
>>
>>Or to put it another way, if he prefers CL why implement Arc on top of
>>Scheme?
>
>
> Well, Paul Graham doesn't usually post here, so any answer you get is
> going to be speculative.
>
> That said, one can prefer different language implementations for
> different purposes. Maybe he doesn't prefer Scheme,
I believe he might. The quote I recall is something along the ideas of
liking Lisp but Common Lisp sucks. Too big, COND has too many parens,
which latter I was surprised to see is also a McCarthy quote.
kt
In the last episode, on Thursday 14 Sivan 5767 18:16, Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> ·····@evins.net wrote:
>> On May 31, 8:00 am, Jeff Rollin <··············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In the last episode, on Thursday 14 Sivan 5767 14:55, fireblade wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On May 31, 3:51 pm, fireblade <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 31, 3:19 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
>>>>>>Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
>>>>>>description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
>>>>>>language specification, sources or more detailed description?
>>>
>>>>>>Yuri.
>>>
>>>>>If you'd like to try Arc, send an email to ······@paulgraham.com and
>>>>>the'll notify you when there is something online to experiment with.
>>>
>>>>>While you're waiting use Common Lisp .
>>>
>>>Why does Paul Graham suggest using CL, when Arc is implemented on top of
>>>Scheme?
>>>
>>>Or to put it another way, if he prefers CL why implement Arc on top of
>>>Scheme?
>>
>>
>> Well, Paul Graham doesn't usually post here, so any answer you get is
>> going to be speculative.
>>
>> That said, one can prefer different language implementations for
>> different purposes. Maybe he doesn't prefer Scheme,
>
> I believe he might. The quote I recall is something along the ideas of
> liking Lisp but Common Lisp sucks. Too big, COND has too many parens,
> which latter I was surprised to see is also a McCarthy quote.
>
> kt
Meh. Assuming Scheme has sufficient libraries to bring it up to the
functionality of CLtL2, would Scheme + libraries be any smaller than CL?
Jeff
Jeff Rollin wrote:
> Meh. Assuming Scheme has sufficient libraries to bring it up to the
> functionality of CLtL2, would Scheme + libraries be any smaller than CL?
Somewhat, but not immensely. Scheme is a Lisp-1 and Common Lisp is a
Lisp-n. This means that to a certain extent, some operators have to be
provided several times, once for each namespace that needs to be covered
(you need let and flet, defun and defvar, and so on...).
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| ·····@evins.net wrote:
| > That said, one can prefer different language implementations for
| > different purposes. Maybe he doesn't prefer Scheme,
|
| I believe he might. The quote I recall is something along the ideas of
| liking Lisp but Common Lisp sucks. Too big, COND has too many parens,
| which latter I was surprised to see is also a McCarthy quote.
+---------------
Hilarious, since Scheme's COND is identical to CL's!! ;-} ;-}
-Rob
p.s. O.k., o.k., not *identical*, since for the test condition in
the last or "default" clause Scheme supports either the ELSE "keyword"
[or *any* other non-#F constant, of course], while CL conventionally
uses T [or *any* other non-NIL constant, such as 'ELSE or :ELSE,
heh, heh!]. But close enough. The parens are the same...
p.s. Similarly, Scheme's CASE supports only ELSE as a keyword for
for the "default" clause, while CL supports either T or OTHERWISE.
But again, close enough, since the comparison operators are both
EQV? or EQL, repectively, which are also (roughly) the same.
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Rob Warnock wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | ·····@evins.net wrote:
> | > That said, one can prefer different language implementations for
> | > different purposes. Maybe he doesn't prefer Scheme,
> |
> | I believe he might. The quote I recall is something along the ideas of
> | liking Lisp but Common Lisp sucks. Too big, COND has too many parens,
> | which latter I was surprised to see is also a McCarthy quote.
> +---------------
>
> Hilarious, since Scheme's COND is identical to CL's!! ;-} ;-}
There's a message there somewhere, not sure what. Might begin "You can
run, but..."
kt
Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
> Rob Warnock wrote:
> > Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +---------------
> > | ·····@evins.net wrote:
> > | > That said, one can prefer different language implementations for
> > | > different purposes. Maybe he doesn't prefer Scheme,
> > | | I believe he might. The quote I recall is something along the
> > ideas of | liking Lisp but Common Lisp sucks. Too big, COND has too
> > many parens, | which latter I was surprised to see is also a
> > McCarthy quote.
> > +---------------
> > Hilarious, since Scheme's COND is identical to CL's!! ;-} ;-}
>
> There's a message there somewhere, not sure what. Might begin "You can
> run, but..."
Sounds like he's been conned by some sort of information-hiding scheme.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> I believe he might. The quote I recall is something along the ideas of
> liking Lisp but Common Lisp sucks. Too big, COND has too many parens,
> which latter I was surprised to see is also a McCarthy quote.
I wonder what a better "let" would look like? The "norm"
appears to be something like this:
(let ((name1 expr1)
(name2 expr2)
(name3 expr3))
...code to be evaluated
in extended environment...)
Judging from the notes on graham's Arc pages, this would
appear in Arc as:
(let (name1 expr1
name2 expr2
name3 expr3)
...code to be evaluated
in extended environment...)
Another alternative I've seen suggested was
(let (name1 name2 name3)
(expr1 expr2 expr3)
...code to be evaluated
in extended environment...)
Somehow none of these is satisfying to me. I like the first
one best, but I certainly remember when I didn't like it; I've
just gotten used to it. The third one requires the parser to
remember some state (how many names it needs expressions for)
that the other two don't have, which seems inelegant to me; and
the second looks like it would be easy to be led astray or grow
bugs by inadvertent misformatting.
·······@googlemail.com wrote:
> What about
> (defmacro var (exp &body body)
> `(let ((,var exp))
> ,@bodz))
>
>
Oh, you're right. Graham is making his let be
the common case where you have exactly one variable
to bind. The above macro ought to implement it in
CL.
Of course, the macro he's using to define it probably
does so in terms of lambda rather than let. :-) He's
old-skool that way.
Bear
Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> wrote:
>(let (name1 name2 name3)
> (expr1 expr2 expr3)
> ...code to be evaluated
> in extended environment...)
>Somehow none of these is satisfying to me. I like the first
>one best, but I certainly remember when I didn't like it; I've
>just gotten used to it. The third one requires the parser to
>remember some state (how many names it needs expressions for)
...
> Of course, the macro he's using to define it probably
> does so in terms of lambda rather than let. :-) He's
> old-skool that way.
>
> Bear
If you mix the these two together, the parser wouldn't need to do
anything.
((lambda (x1 x2 x3...) ,@body)y1 y2 y3 ...)
On 23 Jun, 10:20, Chris Russell <·····················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> wrote:
> >(let (name1 name2 name3)
> > (expr1 expr2 expr3)
> > ...code to be evaluated
> > in extended environment...)
> >Somehow none of these is satisfying to me. I like the first
> >one best, but I certainly remember when I didn't like it; I've
> >just gotten used to it. The third one requires the parser to
> >remember some state (how many names it needs expressions for)
>
> ...
>
> > Of course, the macro he's using to define it probably
> > does so in terms of lambda rather than let. :-) He's
> > old-skool that way.
>
> > Bear
>
> If you mix the these two together, the parser wouldn't need to do
> anything.
>
> ((lambda (x1 x2 x3...) ,@body)y1 y2 y3 ...)
Sorry. I missed Vassill's post up stream.
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:03:23 -0700, Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> said:
| ...
| Another alternative I've seen suggested was
| (let (name1 name2 name3)
| (expr1 expr2 expr3)
| ...code to be evaluated
| in extended environment...)
Is that significantly different from
((lambda (name1 name2 name3) ...) expr1 expr2 expr3)
though?
---Vassil.
--
The truly good code is the obviously correct code.
On Jun 1, 4:07 pm, ····@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:37:11 -0700, fireblade <·················@gmail.com>
> tried to confuse everyone with this message:
>
> >I don't want to burn in hell.
>
> >Slobodan Blazeski
>
> >"When I'll die I want to go in hell because I know all the daemons"
>
> You're rather contradictory here ;)
>
It should looked like a signing for some FreeBSd user not me. I
started directly with FreeBSD but now I'm taking a detour called
Ubuntu.When I'm ready I'll return to beastie.
On May 31, 6:51 am, fireblade <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 3:19 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
> > Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
> > description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
> > language specification, sources or more detailed description?
>
> > Yuri.
>
> If you'd like to try Arc, send an email to ······@paulgraham.com and
> the'll notify you when there is something online to experiment with.
>
> While you're waiting use Common Lisp.
What krap this is! All this highly experienced language talent is
waiting to be fed like mindless consumer wannabes when the folks on
high get around to dropping a few crumbs. Why should anyone take this
seriously?
samantha wrote:
>> While you're waiting use Common Lisp.
> What krap this is! All this highly experienced language talent is
> waiting to be fed like mindless consumer wannabes when the folks on
> high get around to dropping a few crumbs.
Not all of us are. Qi is already open-sourced:
http://www.lambdassociates.org/
--
Dan
www.prairienet.org/~dsb/
samantha wrote:
> What krap this is! All this highly experienced language talent is
> waiting to be fed like mindless consumer wannabes when the folks on
> high get around to dropping a few crumbs.
Welcome to the Real World.
········@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
> Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
> description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
> language specification, sources or more detailed description?
Better ask Paul Graham himself.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> ········@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
>> Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
>> description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
>> language specification, sources or more detailed description?
>
>
> Better ask Paul Graham himself.
Better not.
> So please don't send us mail asking what Arc's status is or when it will be done.
kt
In the last episode, on Thursday 14 Sivan 5767 14:19, ········@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
> Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
> description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
> language specification, sources or more detailed description?
>
> Yuri.
You might also like to try out Qi, which builds on top of CL instead of
Scheme and is farther ahead, afaik:
http://www.lambdassociates.org/
HTH
Jeff
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, ········@gmail.com wrote:
> fireblade:
> > Just curios why do you need Arc for? (What do you plan to use it for?)
>
> I am planning to develop my own statically typed lisp dialect for .NET
> platform (CLS compliant) to use rich .net fw library and other
> advantages of .net fw with powerful macro system of lisp.
>
Have you looked at bigloo?
On Jun 1, 6:54 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
> fireblade:
>
> > Just curios why do you need Arc for? (What do you plan to use it for?)
>
> I am planning to develop my own statically typed lisp dialect for .NET
> platform (CLS compliant) to use rich .net fw library and other
> advantages of .net fw with powerful macro system of lisp.
>
> So I think it would be useful to me to look at Arc to make for some
> language design decisions.
>
> Yuri.
What every lisper ought to do before he dies:
"Plant a tree, write a book, create his own dialect of lisp"
You're wasting your time.(Though it may be fun think about below) :
Even if you create great dialect of lisp , and a lot of people with
vast knowledge tried and failed, just google for it, you'll still need
couple of other things:
1. Good Yuri-lisp to MSIL (or C# ,...) compiler
2. Libraries, and lots of them (iterate, series, hunchentoot, clsql,
cells, aspect-list,cl-pdf...)
3. Userbase
All of 3 points above are sort of chicken and egg interdependent and I
doubt that you could handle all of them alone .Of course unless
you're genious . Are you ?
So my advice is to use RNDNZL for your .Net lisping (look at weitz.de)
it'll suit most of your needs and you'll get all 3 point sfor gratis.
Lisp is not crying for new dialects but for applications written in
it. With using lisp you already put yourself into a mystic obscure
place & community .Do you really wanna step any further to void?
ps
I forgeth to say something that you're still tied to Windows , (yes I
know about Mono)
fireblade:
> What every lisper ought to do before he dies:
> "Plant a tree, write a book, create his own dialect of lisp"
By the way writing a book is good idea :)
> You're wasting your time.(Though it may be fun think about below) :
In my opinion such experience will be useful in anyway.
> Even if you create great dialect of lisp , and a lot of people with
My target is not to create great and popular lisp dialect.
> 1. Good Yuri-lisp to MSIL (or C# ,...) compiler
+1. I will try.
> 2. Libraries, and lots of them (iterate, series, hunchentoot, clsql,
> cells, aspect-list,cl-pdf...)
One of the main reasons to create my own lisp dialect under .NET fw is
to use rich set of .NET fw libraries.
> All of 3 points above are sort of chicken and egg interdependent and I
> doubt that you could handle all of them alone .Of course unless
> you're genious . Are you ?
No. I am not a genious :(
> So my advice is to use RNDNZL for your .Net lisping (look at weitz.de)
> it'll suit most of your needs and you'll get all 3 point sfor gratis.
Thnx, I will look at RNDNZL.
But the best Lisp for .NET I have found was LSharp. Some guys thinking
that Nemerle is most right Lisp for .NET :)
> ps
> I forgeth to say something that you're still tied to Windows , (yes I
> know about Mono)
Mono is not so bad :)
On Jun 4, 12:29 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
> fireblade:
>
> > What every lisper ought to do before he dies:
> > "Plant a tree, write a book, create his own dialect of lisp"
>
> By the way writing a book is good idea :)
>
> > You're wasting your time.(Though it may be fun think about below) :
>
> In my opinion such experience will be useful in anyway.
>
> > Even if you create great dialect of lisp , and a lot of people with
>
> My target is not to create great and popular lisp dialect.
>
> > 1. Good Yuri-lisp to MSIL (or C# ,...) compiler
>
> +1. I will try.
>
> > 2. Libraries, and lots of them (iterate, series, hunchentoot, clsql,
> > cells, aspect-list,cl-pdf...)
>
> One of the main reasons to create my own lisp dialect under .NET fw is
> to use rich set of .NET fw libraries.
>
> > All of 3 points above are sort of chicken and egg interdependent and I
> > doubt that you could handle all of them alone .Of course unless
> > you're genious . Are you ?
>
> No. I am not a genious :(
>
> > So my advice is to use RNDNZL for your .Net lisping (look at weitz.de)
> > it'll suit most of your needs and you'll get all 3 point sfor gratis.
>
> Thnx, I will look at RNDNZL.
>
> But the best Lisp for .NET I have found was LSharp. Some guys thinking
> that Nemerle is most right Lisp for .NET :)
>
> > ps
> > I forgeth to say something that you're still tied to Windows , (yes I
> > know about Mono)
>
> Mono is not so bad :)
Yes, seems that everybody likes to add a little of it's own flavour
to lisp.
I wish you happy deasigning, but still look for a few days at RNDNZL
http://www.weitz.de/rdnzl/ or preinstalled in Corman Lisp 3
http://www.cormanlisp.com/ ,there might be some cool app seating in
you, bringing it to world with lisp(*) would be really nice.
cheers
Slobodan Blazeski
(*) When I say lisp I mean common lisp, for the other meaning I use
lisp family.
fireblade:
> I wish you happy deasigning, but still look for a few days at RNDNZL
> http://www.weitz.de/rdnzl/ or preinstalled in Corman Lisp 3
> http://www.cormanlisp.com/ ,there might be some cool app seating in
> you, bringing it to world with lisp(*) would be really nice.
RNDNZL is not CLS compliant i.e. it is only type consumer. I cant
create my types and use them from other languages.
On Jun 4, 5:30 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
> fireblade:
>
> > I wish you happy deasigning, but still look for a few days at RNDNZL
> >http://www.weitz.de/rdnzl/or preinstalled in Corman Lisp 3
> >http://www.cormanlisp.com/,there might be some cool app seating in
> > you, bringing it to world with lisp(*) would be really nice.
>
> RNDNZL is not CLS compliant i.e. it is only type consumer. I cant
> create my types and use them from other languages.
Why would you like to do that ? Selling libraries perhaps.
When you choose language you choose whole system : language +
libraries + implementations + community. lisp is not perfect but is
best whole system i could think of now but YMMV
········@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
> Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
> description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
> language specification, sources or more detailed description?
I believe Paul Graham did a tremendous amount of work on it, added many
incredible features and renamed it to "GHC":
http://haskell.org/ghc/
Wow. This language is amazing. And already more popular than Lisp?
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The OCaml Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_journal/?usenet
Jon Harrop wrote:
> I believe Paul Graham did a tremendous amount of work on it, added many
> incredible features and renamed it to "GHC":
>
> http://haskell.org/ghc/
Even if it is hopeless, some clarifications: Haskell, and the
implementation GHC, is not based on Arc and as you can see on the page
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Contributors , Paul Graham is not
listed in the GHC team.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
>
>
>>I believe Paul Graham did a tremendous amount of work on it, added many
>>incredible features and renamed it to "GHC":
>>
>> http://haskell.org/ghc/
>
>
> Even if it is hopeless,...
What works for Harrop is that at least one moron always falls for his
trap... oh! sorry, Frank!
:)
ken
In article <·····························@40tude.net>,
Frank Buss <··@frank-buss.de> wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
>
> > I believe Paul Graham did a tremendous amount of work on it, added many
> > incredible features and renamed it to "GHC":
> >
> > http://haskell.org/ghc/
>
> Even if it is hopeless, some clarifications: Haskell, and the
> implementation GHC, is not based on Arc and as you can see on the page
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Contributors , Paul Graham is not
> listed in the GHC team.
Frank, you know what a 'Troll' is? A 'Spammer'?
On May 31, 6:19 am, ········@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
> Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
> description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
> language specification, sources or more detailed description?
>
> Yuri.
I have waited years for this to be more than utter vaporware. A pity
as the hype of this non-existing future tech tarnishes somewhat the
reputation of someone I admire greatly. Move along. Nothing to see
here.
- s
> On May 31, 6:19 am, ········@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hello guys, I want to find something about Arc the new lisp dialect by
> > Paul Graham. I could not found anything about except of short
> > description in one of the Paul Graham esseys. Where can I find
> > language specification, sources or more detailed description?
The best summary of the situation is here: http://lemonodor.com/archives/001518.html