I like Arc, but there's just no way that it follows the six principles laid out here.
(a) simple solution - yes
(b) to overlooked problem - no. It's just a personal spin on Lisp/Scheme. It covers exactly the same territory.
(c) that actually needs to be solved - no. Programmers have many good languages to choose from. Arc is a nice little wrapper on top of Lisp to make it pretty, but any undergrad could do the same thing.
(d) deliver them as informally as possible - no. You don't write long essays about a language 5+ years before you show a prototype if "informality" is your goal.
(e) starting with a very crude version - yes
(f) iterating rapidly - no. You could get a master's degree in computer science in the time it took for the minimal prototype of Arc to show up.
Stop with the spin in the headlines, please. There's no "drubbing" here at all, and adding "well-deserved" is as bad as something you'd expect from the Bush administration.
(a) simple solution - yes
(b) to overlooked problem - no. It's just a personal spin on Lisp/Scheme. It covers exactly the same territory.
(c) that actually needs to be solved - no. Programmers have many good languages to choose from. Arc is a nice little wrapper on top of Lisp to make it pretty, but any undergrad could do the same thing.
(d) deliver them as informally as possible - no. You don't write long essays about a language 5+ years before you show a prototype if "informality" is your goal.
(e) starting with a very crude version - yes
(f) iterating rapidly - no. You could get a master's degree in computer science in the time it took for the minimal prototype of Arc to show up.