May I present to you the evsrv (eval server), a multi-user, multi-tasks, shared time "Arc Machine"!
Once you've created an account, you're in front of our own Arc REPL, with your own environment (i.e: you can define stuff, and state is preserved between requests & logouts-logins).
It's all new, so expect bugs & problems. Plus, I'm not quite sure it can stand on the long term, even more on this small server (single core, 1gb memory, and already running, as you can see, http://dabuttonfactory.com).
Oh yes, and forgive me for the URL, I may buy a domain name for it, but I thought you might like to play with it even in its "alpha" stage ;-)
It runs on a modified version of Arc, that uses some extra MzScheme stuff, mainly namespaces & sandboxes. I may post the source, but like for the domain name, not now. Want to see if it works on the wild before.
Please don't spam it too much for now, I mean don't tell all your friends. But play with it for yourself as much as you want ;-)
Suggestions, ideas, bug reports are greatly appreciated.
Thanks for this, even though I haven't used it yet. I've been using the ArcLite online demo (http://jonathan.tang.name/files/arclite/index.html), but it hasn't been maintained; its creator, nostrademons, hasn't been very active; and it is so slow that the fizz-buzz problem fails to run on it.
Sorry I don't come back on the "want to see if it works on the wild before". I'll certainly show the source, even if it doesn't (work on the wild), but please wait.
Plus, hmmm, did you even bother trying it? You may have chosen another username, but:
arc> (user->repl* "rntz")
nil
If you have chosen another username, OK, no problem (but I can't guess). If you've not tried it, your choice, but then I'll parse your request as "Gosh palsecam is such a moron, an REPL on the browser has no future[1], performance/privacy issue, blahblahblah, but I'll be glad to steal his code for another more useful purpose that I'll not communicate about".
I am, at least I hope, certainly wrong on my analysis, but sorry, that's how I read your message.
And obviously, I don't like to be taken for a moron. And obviously, I don't like this kind of "stealing".
------
1: I'm sure some people think this. They might be right, but this kind of reasoning also lead to "GMail/... has no future", which was proved to be wrong.
I don't know if I'll seriously keep on working on the evsrv, but I can think of lots of good features that being web-based would enabled.
rntz, if you think this is a stupid idea, I have no problem with this, but then tell us about the (better) idea for which you'd like to use the code.
It's true I don't (well, didn't) have an account on the eval server. I didn't really feel the need to try it, not because I think it's crap, but because... well, it's a persistent REPL on the web. That's most of what I need to know, really, and if I ever need a persistent web-based REPL I'll know where to go - I trust it to be everything you say it is (and now that I've looked at it, it is; and it's swanky to boot). Just because I don't yet have a use for a thing doesn't mean I think it's crap. Hell, I don't yet have a "real" use for Arc itself beyond just playing with it as a sort of language sandbox - I haven't even tried firing up the webserver that comes with it! Does that mean I think arc or the arc webserver is crap? Hell no.
I have no intention of stealing your code. If you don't want to share your code, then don't; I tend to assume that Arc-related stuff will be open-source simply because it's common. And if you do share your code, I won't use it for some private purpose that "I'll not communicate about"; I'd share it back. That's how open source works.
The reason why I asked to see the source, despite you noting that you didn't intend to release it until testing it in the wild, was because I imagined (as CatDancer seems to have surmised) that the reason you didn't release it was because you weren't satisfied with its quality yet; hence the comment about "even if it has bugs or scalability issues or whatever".
The reason why I want to see your code is not, then, because I think you've done a bad job - how could I? As you noted, I hadn't even tried it when I made the post. Rather, I'd like to see it because in order to implement it, you have to have done some cool stuff (for example, AJAX, and some way of maintaining a persistent REPL) in arc that I would find instructive to read and possibly useful in the future. I don't ask with a purpose already in mind, but rather to learn; that's why I'm using Arc in the first place.
> Does that mean I think [...] the arc webserver is crap? Hell no
Actually, on some points it is (IMHO of course) ;-D
> I won't use it for some private purpose that "I'll not communicate about"; I'd share it back. That's how open source works.
Sadly everyone is not as honest as you :-/ I've met some people not understanding what FOSS is about, and being big bitches about it, so I'm now more suspicious than I used to be.
But this is no excuse, I was not right to emit judgements about you based on my past experiences.
> weren't satisfied with its quality yet
Yep, was/is the case, see last item on the TODO list (in evsrv.arc)
> some cool stuff (for example, AJAX
Actually, nothing cool or magic about Ajax. It's just sugar (here).
> some way of maintaining a persistent REPL)
More magic here :-) Although it is just because of MzScheme being a very good language, and having namespaces and sandboxes.
> I don't ask with a purpose already in mind, but rather to learn
The noblest of all purposes ;-)
Once again sorry for misinterpreted and being quite rude with you.
I think I may be able to clear up a bit of confusion here.
All (almost all?) of the code related to Arc so far has been released as open source by various authors, including rntz's extensive work with Anarki.
Thus when code hasn't been released, it's been because the author doesn't think it's good enough yet, instead of because the author wants to keep it proprietary.
So when one of us sees something cool, it's not uncommon for us to say, "oooh, we'd like to see the source to that!" Not as a request to give away something proprietary, but to say that if someone has code that they'll be making open source anyway, to encourage them to go ahead and release it, because it looks cool.
I'm pretty sure it was a statement of curiosity. I'd venture to say that that's the intention most of us would have in asking to see the source. (Hell, I'd be interested in seeing it.) You're probably reading too much into this.
(Plus, it's not really "stealing" if you willingly share the code.)
