Yeah something like the timelime feature in trac would be nice to see the diffs and commits. Would also probably make it easier to notice people slipping in those calls to 'rm -rf /' with system and back those out.
I like git. I thought doing exactly what you did. I went with subversion because it was simpler (I know svn better than I know git) and because it makes the Wikipedia analogy work.
Okay, sounds good. I'll set up a wiki branch of my git repo mirroring it.
I was going to ask you to reorganize the directories so that they'd work better for mirroring, but then I realized it was a wiki, and did it myself. I hope you don't mind.
Update: There now exists git://nex-3.com/arc-wiki.git, with anonymous push access.
You don't even need a fake username-password :). It has all the patches in the Subversion wiki as of this writing, and it's based on my existing git repo, so patches can easily be sent back and forth.
Granted, negative feedback reveals targets for improvement.
But!
With all things considered in the current context, it's unlikely that it will achieve any results.
Criticisms make their authors feel good and superior. But they do nothing to make the world better. They probably won't even rearrange the priority list for Arc features, as PG, RM and crew are very busy. Since there is no spare time, criticisms are made useless. PG didn't put out Arc and say "Hey, I'm bored, what should I do next?"
If we-the-users want change, we-the-users need to be prepared to create it. A ten-minute blog post attacking Arc is ten minutes wasted.
So, criticisms do no good. They may do harm, however. Criticisms without contributions will make the Arc authors feel resentful. It's an awful feeling to give something away and have people attack it.
Imagine you gave someone a gift. If they didn't like it, you would expect an awkward pause, a mumbled thank-you, and then the gift would be ignored. How would you react if someone didn't like your gift, and started belittling it and swearing at you?
I suppose part of my point is that anything new has a window of opportunity. Imagine the difference between a fire that burns hot but short and a fire that burns long and slow. Which would you prefer to keep you warm for a night?
To be successful, a programming language community must hit critical mass during its window of opportunity.
Arc has a new window of opportunity. Thanks to years of pg's community-building, it has momentum. I'm not sure that newLisp has that same chance.
Had arc been released in a form which appeared polished, its window would have been short. This way, Arc has a chance to build.
When Steve Yegge and Peter Norvig and others come along to take a look, Arc needs to be ready.
Well if ever a language burned long and slow newLISP is it. As such it has already achieved most of the goals set for Arc. It puts the fun back into programming.
Look, I understand you like newLISP a lot. I don't think that's a good reason for downplaying this project.
You have a language you like? Good, stick to it. You don't need to paint other peoples' bikeshed, do you?
I don't really know newLISP very much, but I know it uses hygienic macros and my brain is just not wired for them. So forgive me if I prefer Arc.
You seem to know about the "goals set for Arc". What they would be? To "put fun back into programming"? Every new language and its dog claims to do that, nowadays. I'm having a lot of fun using LISP already, thankyouverymuch. (I mean any LISP.)
And I'm interested in everything that has to do with LISP. If you want to bring in technical merits of newLISP or discuss technical points about Arc, you are welcome, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you are better off doing something different with your time than starting religious flame wars. Personally, I really have had enough of that.
You really think that Arc can't do better than newLISP? Good. There's nothing to talk about. Time will tell, and you'll even get to laugh as Arc implodes. You'll have lots of fun. Let us have ours. Thanks.
