I agree. The distinction between having a standard library and extending it with a new one is a weak distinction. The only thing it says is that arc handled a specific common function out of the box. What about all the other batteries that are not included in arc vs. language x? If you need to do any one of a hundred normal things that languages do, arc would fall flat on its' face. Try connecting to a database being capable of fetching large result sets, try having robust integration points with a host of common facilities. True pipes, cross platform, concurrency models etc. etc. My point is that any number of languages could offer a dozen challenges that arc would fail, but pg could always add it to his library and declare it standard simply because he's is in control as the authoritative source.
Comments
I agree. The distinction between having a standard library and extending it with a new one is a weak distinction. The only thing it says is that arc handled a specific common function out of the box. What about all the other batteries that are not included in arc vs. language x? If you need to do any one of a hundred normal things that languages do, arc would fall flat on its' face. Try connecting to a database being capable of fetching large result sets, try having robust integration points with a host of common facilities. True pipes, cross platform, concurrency models etc. etc. My point is that any number of languages could offer a dozen challenges that arc would fail, but pg could always add it to his library and declare it standard simply because he's is in control as the authoritative source.