*or use a hidden field on a form submit.

> "I would say Racket is exactly the language the article is begging for"

Racket does not provide any real depth for libraries. There's a lot of promoting for library depth, but as soon as you attempt to do anything practical you soon realize the available libraries are either really rough drafts or are largely out of date. So I don't believe racket meets this criteria highlighted in the article.

> "This also means Lisps should have an object system."

I'm guessing here, but I believe he's referring to an object system that incorporates high level features such as objects + instances with inheritance etc etc. He should probably read pg's Common Lisp book where I believe pg suggests that a oo-system is a great architecture that is well suited to a small set of projects and unfortunately programmers have learned to apply that system to everything they do simply because the oo-languages force them to do so (what they learn is what they know). He goes on to suggest that most projects would be more aligned with FP language paradigms (ie don't force extra layers of complexity where it's not required). And additionally that these oo features are easily implemented in FP languages should you want them ... Don't quote me on all this...I'm going off memory from reading his book over 5 years ago.

I've gotten the same impression of Racket libraries, but going by the article, mass-marketing of Racket would be a good way to end up with active libraries: "In other words, if you have people who need libraries, hackers will write them. When you have more libraries, your language looks more attractive to people who need them, so hackers write more of them[...]"

This rings true for me. I think Arc has experienced this phenomenon firsthand.

Anyway, although Racket lacks a variety of libraries, it has an impressive selection of features out of the box.

---

"Doesn't racket have the cobra or corba? for an oo-system?"

Racket has at least a few systems for stateful values with user-defined fields:

Scheme-style structs -- http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/define-struct.html

Hash tables -- http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/hashtables.html

Classical OO -- http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/classes.html

Personally, I consider some of Racket's other systems to be on par with object systems in terms of supporting whole styles of program development:

Contracts -- http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/contracts.html

Types -- http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/index.html

Reactive event handling -- http://docs.racket-lang.org/frtime/index.html

Continuations of various kinds -- http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/cont.html

3a. Personally I would ditch apache and move to ngnix: http://wiki.nginx.org/Main which solved a variety of problems for me. http://arclanguage.org/item?id=11911 & http://blog.martinfjordvald.com/2010/07/nginx-primer/ may help.However given you're already there it's probably less work to stay with apache.

3b. You don't forward racket to port 80, rather you're supposed to forward incoming requests that come to apache/nginx (which comes in via port 80) over to port 8080 or whatever port you choose to run the arc server on. This is called proxy or gateway passing.

Assuming you stick with apache, I'm still not familiar with your proxy passing implementation. It looks more like a hack using a load balancing mechanism for proxy passing and unless you're load balancing I wouldn't use it. When I used apache in the past I would load the mod_proxy module then do a normal 'ProxyPass'. You should configure according to the docs: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy.html

Here is the simple code to do that on etc/nginx/nginx.conf server { listen 80; server_name bloggervietnam.com www.bloggervietnam.com;

    location / {
    proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1:8080;

    }

1. I just install screen and fortunately it works well. I just hit F6 button to detach my terminal session. That is why I removed fluxbox GUI for saving RAM and resource.

2. I follow the help above and now I can chance the color of the forum.

3. I have not solved the matter yet since apache did not work despite that I already installed necessary modules as you mentioned.

I've used a clojure->scheme->c[1] a little, but Arc could also have it's place too.

Actually I had always wondered if, or hoped that, someone would build Arc atop gambit scheme instead of racket which, in my mind, would be the easiest path to also get Arc working on iOS, but it's not my area so maybe you can tell me which would be better.

Either way I think Arc would be a great fit for creating iOS apps as Arc has much simpler language constructs and mutability/concurrency wouldn't be as big of an issue given the localized nature of mobile code.

Sorry, I think I'm not catching all the context of this sentence. What language's "language constructs" are you comparing with Arc's? (Objective-C? Gambit Scheme? Racket?) What environment with "mutability/concurrency" issues are you contrasting with "mobile code"? (Server programming?)

This variety creates depth to the language, but it also makes the language more complex (even if appropriate). For example even the terms overlap creating confusion... I.e what's an 'atom' ? what's a 'map'? ifn? vs fn?, why does a vector get treated as a function?

So each of these "constructs" serve a purpose, some of which are to deal with state and time, or shall I say concurrency and mutability which often have to do with parallel computing or managing concurrent threads which all operate on the same object or data structure.