> Just in general - is there anything in arc which gives it a big edge to programmers when compared to clojure?
Mutation. It's one thing to allow functional programming. It's another thing to force it.
The only thing constant is change.
> * The read table is currently not accessible to user programs
Neither does Arc, although Anarki does allow redefining of 'ssyntax and 'ssexpand, which almost gives you the same thing.
IMO not giving access to the read table is a good thing. There are very subtle problems with this, starting with: the read table affects all code loaded after the readtable modification.
It affects them whether or not the code was written by you, and whether or not it was written with that readtable definition in mind.
This can cause unfortunate library breakage when two libraries try to modify the same readtable entry; the poor user is thus left at the mercy of which library loaded last.
In fact Arc-F has revoked Anarki's feature which allows 'ssyntax and 'ssexpand to be modified; redefine them all you want, Arc-F will use the built-in traditional 4 ssyntaxes : ~ ! .
HOWEVER, there are currently two reserved context metacommands which will eventually allow ssyntax redefinition at the level of the individual file: 'import-ssyntax and 'interface-ssyntax.
The important thing is that they are context-based, and because they are context-based, they are not global and they will (in general) affect only one loaded file.
> * Keywords are not Symbols
Unimportant - salt to taste.
> * Symbols are not storage locations (see Var)
> * immutable data
Oh, Clojure is not quite completely immutable. Clojure has refs, and they can be mutated within the context of a 'dosync form. Kind of like the Haskell "do" syntax. It's more that Clojure defaults to immutability, and has special syntax to define portions that are imperative.
