I'm open to doing that. It would just be a nontrivial amount of work and there are many nontrivials on the list.
Yes, there's now an Arc-to-JS called Lilt, and an Arc-to-Common Lisp called Clarc. In order to to make those easier to develop, we reworked the lower depths of the existing Arc implementation to build Arc up in stages. The bottom one is called arc0, then arc1 is written in arc0, and then "real" Arc (the full language) is written in arc1. This makes reimplementation easier since you pack as much as possible in the later stages, and only arc0 needs to be written in the underlying system (Racket, JS, or CL).
It also shrank the total Arc implementation by 500 lines or so, which in pg and rtm-land is a couple enclycopedias' worth. That was satisfying, and an indication of how high-level a language Arc is.
Yes, there's now an Arc-to-JS called Lilt, and an Arc-to-Common Lisp called Clarc. In order to to make those easier to develop, we reworked the lower depths of the existing Arc implementation to build Arc up in stages. The bottom one is called arc0, then arc1 is written in arc0, and then "real" Arc (the full language) is written in arc1. This makes reimplementation easier since you pack as much as possible in the later stages, and only arc0 needs to be written in the underlying system (Racket, JS, or CL).
It also shrank the total Arc implementation by 500 lines or so, which in pg and rtm-land is a couple enclycopedias' worth. That was satisfying, and an indication of how high-level a language Arc is.