Would you care to elaborate? Your assertion implies that arc is going to surpass clojure in popularity. Why do you think so? Personally I think that's unlikely to happen given the traction that clojure has been getting already. Clojure has been designed for practical use and is already being used in real world projects whereas I get the impression that arc is sort of a research project where Paul is just experimenting with some ideas and is not constrained by the desire to do practical work.
It's not a story. It's a paradox. The tortoise loses, but the paradox pitches logic against intuition and is thus educational, like a koan (from a different cultural tradition). I am not sure if it is applicable to Clojure (as well as Arc and lisp in general) where intuition follows logic rather than contradicts it.
Yes! The functional aspects of lisp have always made it feel more parallelizable, but outside of particular lisp dialects (*Lisp), effective parallelization has been difficult. Pervasive immutable data structures and front page concurrency mechanisms make clojure decidedly parallel.
(I hope that parallel being the only way to gain additional performance should be obvious by now.)
Is there anything promising about Arc other than being PG's pet language?
I'm not knocking PG here - I just don't see Arc having any real differences from all the other lisp variants. There's nothing revolutionary about it. Which is fine - it is a 100-year language, not a revolutionary language.
I just wonder what the odds are that anyone remembers it in a decade. People use langauges that are unique, and as far as I can see, Arc is not all that unique (unless you're the sort of person who becomes highly excited about the minutia of Lisp semantics)