To erikb: yes, don't forget this important point. Sometimes Arc failed on basic stuff, because news.arc/pg's stuff doesn't need it (yet). If you're not going to accept this fact, you'd better not use Arc (or you can do even better: actually improve it to suit your needs :-)).

See also, taken from http://paulgraham.com/noop.html:

There is a danger in designing a language based on one's own experience of programming. But it seems more dangerous to put stuff in that you've never needed because it's thought to be a good idea.

which is wise.

> If you were to write a language to support a single app, you wouldn't need fluff like being able to run from a different working directory. [or, as palsecam put it more eloquently, Lisps in general just consider the OS is crap, and they are too "pure" to talk with it.]

I don't think this is the same idea here.

"Mine" is: you are crazy to create a general-purpose language and completely ignore the rest and the world, i.e the OS and the other programs (not written in your language). (In Common Lisp defense, it was designed at a time the OSes were more diverse & their future uncertain, etc.).

And Arc, as we said, is not so designed to be of general purpose.

And I don't think "if you were to write a language to support a single app, you wouldn't need fluff like being able to run from a different working directory" is totally correct. You can design a language for a single purpose that would include deep cooperation with the OS. E.g: purpose is to write a language to manage firewalling rules.