4 ms·

How could it hurt a language's lasting power for it to have powerful libraries? Do you mean that it might hurt Clojure specifically, because it relies on Java'

• pg 18y ago
  It was just a general point. I don't know anything about Clojure. The dangers of libraries are that they distract one's attention from the core language, and that they could conceal or perpetuate flaws in the core language. I'm not saying that languages shouldn't have powerful libraries, btw, just that they may not be 100% upside.
  • mike_organon 18y ago
    I think it's unfortunate you haven't even looked at Clojure. If you did, it's possible both languages could benefit. While I am a fan of the JVM, one downside of the language is that compromises were needed to work nicely on the JVM. Besides that, Clojure has many features that make programming in it great for experimentation (and large-scale), and I don't see those features in Arc. If Arc had immutability, threading, STM concurrency, lazy functions, and literal data structures, but without the JVM compromises and with the 100-year goal, it might be more interesting to me and others. I looked at Arc when it first came out, but the homepage still doesn't spell out what makes it worthwhile other than "brief and malleable".