Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I asked a similar question[1] of Arc many moons ago and received an interesting answer from pg[2] that I think applies:

    A lot of people seem to feel that a language 
    isn't real unless the designer is talking to 
    them every day. But that's not the only way 
    languages happen. Nor possibly the best way.[3] 
    I feel like you get better ideas if you think 
    in units of occasional essays rather than a 
    stream of tweets. It seems likely the same 
    will be true with language design.
Rich and Stuart Halloway have indeed been silent in the public forums recently, but I seriously doubt that they have stalled one iota.

[1]: http://blog.fogus.me/2009/02/06/yegge-clojure-arc-and-lolita...

[2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=470254

[3]: Hammock-driven development http://clojure.blip.tv/file/4457042/

I think that's a bit apples and oranges. Arc is a long-term project that pg has said doesn't actually "have" to be useful to anyone anytime soon. Clojure, on the other hand, is under active, public development, as swannodette points out.

I think you might be missing fogus's point to a certain degree. His point is that active, public development for a language might not necessarily mean that the language designer is keeping contact every day. You might only receive periodic updates.

I don't see cookies being all that different from Arc in that respect. Cookies doesn't have to be useful anytime soon either because, well, it is useful already.

I think you are arguing a connection that is at best stretched.

Fogus' point is well-meaning, but it tars an active project with the brush of being some guy's (even pg's) hobby language, like Arc.

A pg quote AND a pg styled references list? Really?

(Downvote freely)

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact