No, there is not an 'official' one on anarky - that's the point. The only official one is Arc2.tar, and I wouldn't expect the next release anytime soon.
I'd like to know what pg is thinking. Even a tiny bit of communication would go along way, but he seems to have leftthebuilding.
If he wants to take 6 months or a year to release the next version, that's fine, but it would be nice to have some indication of a plan regardless of how informal.
Maybe you should send him an e-mail and ask him explicitly. He doesn't seem to come here these days anyway... I hope that's not because he's horrified by what we did to his baby :)
Nice. I remembered there already was something, but couldn't find it. was trying to find it using site:arclanguage.org and ruby python c, but it didn't show up obviously enough in google
Thanks, but you forgot the important part about only retrieving the first 10 entries. I purposely included that to see how Arc would handle prematurely exiting an iteration.
Also, I think you may have forgotten to read the file. w/infile only opens the file, right?
I realize Arc doesn't have regex's yet, but some folks have been asserting that you can do just fine w/o them, so I was curious about an Arcy way to solve the parsing w/o regex's.
You're right. For the file's content, I just forgot to give it to the 'pmatch function (that's her file). For the test, well, that's quite trivial, provided you know there will be at least 10 values in your file (but, being given your code, that's the case anyway). Now let's consider pmatch only returns one value, then returns it (instead of a list of all values). As the file is a parameter, it is easy to know what's left to read.
(w/infile f "arcleaders.html"
(while (< count 10) (pmatch f "(\\d\\d?)\\..*?.+?<u>(.+?)<\\/u>.+?(\\d+)" action)))
I realize pmatch hasn't been written yet, but this seems odd. You're calling (pmatch f pat action) repeatedly, so where is the state info kept regarding the index of the last match, etc.? Your example reminds me of strtok in this regard, but I doubt that's what you had in mind.
With the Ruby example, the scan function invokes the supplied block repeatedly, but the break statement within the block will exit the scan function which is the desired behavior.
It's somewhat moot until someone writes pmatch though.
Well the f parameter has an index anyway, so the function knows what is left to be parsed anytime you call it, I guess ? Hmmm, I'll try to make a dumb version of pmatch and see what happens...
I'm just messin' with ya. It's definitely better to not use multiple user names IMO. And as far as the tie - that 40+ point jump looks awfully fishy to me. Two can play that game though, so knock it off :)
Kenny has definitely left the building :) I think he just wanted to put in his due diligence in checking out the language, but I don't think he ever bought in to Lisp-1 and is sticking with CL.
He hasn't posted on his own blog, either, so he may be doing something entirely different, like travelling: he gave a talk recently at the European Common Lisp Meeting (ECLM) in Amsterdam.
"The first is obviously pg apparent disinterest in his own creature..."
I think you hit the nail on the head there. I know pg has said that he does read the posts even when he doesn't reply, but let's face it, it doesn't take too long to post a comment occasionally. If he even took the time to communicate a vision to the "community", that would be helpful. I think people would be more patient if they had a clue about where this was heading.
Although it's certainly fun to pick up a new language, it also takes time and effort, and I'd like to see more evidence that Arc will continue to progress before I invest much time into it (especially since it lacks a couple "must haves" for me currently).
So, regarding the other comment about needing more publicity in terms of someone's pet project - I think there's a catch-22 there - who's going to put together a substantial application if they're unsure if the language will survive?
"who's going to put together a substantial application if they're unsure if the language will survive?"
This is true if you're writing your application for commercial use, but if you're doing it just for fun you can even use a language written by yourself that no one else know. The biggest problem is the lack of development and debugging tools. I few weeks ago I started a project to learn a bit more about compilers, and I ended up using Common Lisp because the task was very difficult by itself and I needed a good way to debug the program. Using Arc would have meant to make a difficult project even more difficult.
I think you just proved my point. I presume your project to "learn a bit more about compilers" was not commercial in nature, and yet you chose Common Lisp. Whether a project is for fun or for profit, I'd prefer to not waste my time, and it appears you feel the same.
I think the survivability (not popularity) of a programming language is closely correlated with its usefulness to programmers.
Of course, the best way to rebut my implicit assertion is to actually "put together a substantial application" with Arc instead of talking about it, right?
