Sounds interesting. Apart from the regulation part, it sounds a bit like LibreJS[0].

The macro definition of with creates a function with all the names as inputs and the body of the with as the body of the function. The newly created function is called with the definitions of each name, which are effectively in independent namespaces.

The withs definition, however; recursively calls itself so that each succeeding name sees the definitions of previous names.

    arc> (help get)
    [fn]  (get i)
    Returns a function to pass 'i' to its input.
    Useful in higher-order functions, or to index into lists, strings, tables, etc.
    Examples:
      arc> (get.2 '(1 2 3 4))
      3
      arc> (get!b (obj a 10 b 20))
      20
      arc> (get.9 sqrt)
      3
      arc> (map get.2
                '((a b c)
                  (1 2 3)
                  (p q r)))
      (c 3 r)
    nil

    arc> (help set)
    [mac] (set . args)
    Sets each place in 'args' to t.
    nil

  (= a (test))

  (a!get)

  Error: " get: arity mismatch;\n the expected number of arguments does not match the given number\n  expected: 1\n  given: 0"

  (a!set 1)

  Error: "Function call on inappropriate object #(tagged mac #<procedure: set>) (1)"

I've often thought that the structure of the news.arc forum is rather unhelpful for the arc community, especially now that we're so small and lethargic. Conversations can go extended periods of time without comment, so they get locked. Or they fall off the front page, and hard to find again. Neither is conducive to long-term development and improvement; we probably lose a lot of valuable work and ideas that way.

One thing I'm considering as part of developing a new community site is collecting and archiving all of the arclanguage.org content, so we can actually access it. And preserve it, if the site goes down.

You may not be entirely wrong, but I probably shouldn't have tried to compress a description of a language used and developed by a loosely federated group of unique individuals into a single phrase.

I can try to unpack it a bit...

"Experimental (language) hacking" -> Exploratory programming is supposedly a primary paradigm of arc

"Experimental language hacking" -> Arc isn't exactly production ready; it's a very experimental language, and that makes it fun (and sometimes frustrating) to use, and easier to explore new directions and possibilities. You're less likely to reverently assume that the way it is is the way it must be.

Currently, this is an Arc forum. People are drawn here from pg's posts about Arc, and their attraction to the simplicity and beauty of the language. Also probably dreams of silver bullets... That won't stop just because we make a separate community, and I really don't think there's anything wrong with it.

However, I think we're also torn a bit between maintaining basically a bugfix version of arc, or going on to develop it further.

The question then is what "further" means - which direction would it go? One answer is that it can't really be predicted; creating such a community would be a way to find out.

On the other hand I can speculate, based on what I've seen of this community so far.

People come, entranced by pg's vision of arc, and then find out that the code base itself is really small and approachable. In general, lisp variants are used by people who like to make the language fit their needs, but where most dialects would add to the language via macros, with arc (or anarki) people find it just as easy to hack on the core of the language itself. Eventually this leads them to forking it, or building their own implementation in javascript or something.

I suspect this is partly because arc is so small, and does not have many standard libraries or a package system. You can read it all in a fairly short amount of time. So the fact that most of the code is aimed at developing arc means that the easiest thing to develop with it is... arc.

This trend of exploration and extension will undoubtedly continue, and I think it will be much more free to develop into something significant if we simply look at anarki with the slightly different perspective that having a separate community site we could actually upgrade might offer. Instead of being weighed down by arc as the 'community bugfix edition', it could become a 'language based on arc' with a solid foundation, but room to grow.

The core paradigms and strengths of arc appear to be "exploratory programming", and "language hacking". I think it would be cool if we could develop the former beyond the latter, but who knows how it will turn out?

I realize this is a comparison for clarification, but isn't it still just 'categorically demonizing innocent people'?

You picked a more controversial topic where more people are likely to agree with the demonization I suppose, but your assertion that the power to kill "may be considered unjust by principle" is not well supported by vague assertions that "some think" guns "may be seen as" unjust instruments of violence. I fully support everyone's right to object to something they see as dangerous; opinion does not constitute principle, however.

To me, something is just or unjust based on whether or not it aligns with or infringes anyone's rights. So, I suppose I might actually agree that a power could be "unjust in principle" if it could be shown that the power could not be used justly - that is, without infringing on anyone else's rights. For some powers, mostly political ones, this is the case. In this case I think guns may be a poor comparison, because they actually can be used in ways which are just (defense, etc.), even if you believe that those cases are unlikely and so desire strict gun control, etc.

In contrast, it may be that producing nonfree software is always 'wrong' (in that it infringes on the supposed rights of the users to understand and modify the program they are running) and therefore having or providing the power to do so would be 'unjust in principle'. If the concern is merely that some may produce malware, and there are actually legitimate reasons for producing nonfree software, then it is not unjust in principle to do so, or to provide someone with said power.

I'm sorry; that was not my intention.

Perhaps I can make a comparison to clarify? As an example, some people think that guns are unethical because they may be seen as an unjust instrument of violence. Even if a particular gun hasn't killed anyone (yet), or even if most guns happened not to be used to kill, then surely it can still be legitimate for people to object to the passive presence of guns, because it gives gun owners the power to kill, and that power may be considered unjust by principle.

Similarly, some people think that non-free software is unethical because it gives programmers the power to do bad stuff, regardless of whether some particular non-free program is actually malware (yet).

Perhaps that is not relevant when someone else is doing the hosting, but I've gotten used to Gogs/Gitea now.