Talk:Arc (programming language)

Duplicate

just noticed there's a similiar stub Arc language with similiar cont, which title should stay? somebody who knows the standarts req.. 80.54.106.58 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2003

Survived

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. It was merged and redirected to Paul Graham. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Re-merge with Paul Graham

Hi. In 2005 this article was merged with Paul Graham on the grounds that Arc is a vaporwear language with "no publicly available implementation, no spec, no schedule for either" (see above).

In January 2007 the page was recreated by Boemanneke, but the rationale for the merger from the VfD still holds true: Arc is still vaporwear. It still has no spec or publicly available implementation, and still has no schedule for release, and therefore, is still only notable in that it is promoted by PG.

--nb all of these remarks are false ~~Chief sequoya —Preceding comment added by Chief sequoya (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 July 2009

Baring any serious objections I'll merge what I can from this article into Paul Graham and re-institute the redirect in a week.

Jorbettis 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're only creating work with this short-term thinking. --MarSch 11:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The "doubt" cast on arc at the head of the article is frankly suspicious. Is there some animus against arc among the editors? You might as well declare the Haskell article to be of doubtful interest. I'm not any kind of 'fan', nor a member of the arc community, but I use arc frequently, it's a very good, spare language; it has an excellent interpreter, many libraries, and active forum. I would think an arc article is more important than about 80% of the programming language articles on the Wikipedia. In any case, if a language is actually used there MUST be a Wikipedia article. You might as well exclude some nations on account of their being small or poor. The comparison with bits of software in the remarks above is really disturbing and suggests incompetence -- cp. the use of 'vaporware' above, as if it were a speculation on a possible game or web browser. A programmming language, if it is actually used by people IS A HUMAN LANGUAGE. The arc community is larger than that of many other human languages lovingly described on wikipedia. The suggestions made above are from the past, but they suggest something is up; the atmosphere of suspicion should simply be dropped. Chief sequoya (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Chief sequoya

"if a language is actually used there MUST be a Wikipedia article" I agree. 74.77.129.191 (talk)

Is LISP timeline actually relevant?

at first glance, I thought it was the end of the article, because it's only relevance seems to be to declare Arc the newest dialect of LISP. I assume it was lifted from the LISP article (where it clearly would belong). I'm going to move it to the end, but I think it should probably be deleted altogether. Cuvtixo (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)