Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Janet Programming Language

janet-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 124 posts

Re: The Janet Programming Language

#31

Post by masklinn »

galfarragem wrote: post #16
masklinn wrote: post #7

That's a weird language. At first glance it looks like a hyper-imperative lisp (except turns out it doesn't Process LISts).

It's dead easy to get started. If you want to spend an hour playing with a "lisp" you're only a small download away. Clojure could learn a thing of two from this.. It's also not dogmatic. You can use mutable and immutable versions of the same data structure. Docs are concise: https://janet-lang.org/docs/index.html Full API is here: https://janet-lang.org/api/index.html [edit] I fully agree that "getting started" on C…

> It's also not dogmatic. You can use mutable and immutable versions of the same data structure.

However from their description and the complexity promises it looks like the immutable collections are literally just the mutable ones without mutation ability (similar to Java's immutable* wrappers) which greatly limits their effective usefulness.

> Full API is here: https://janet-lang.org/api/index.html

Sadly even worse than clojure's which is already not great.

Re: The Janet Programming Language

#34

Post by mnming »

I was a donator to Janet for a little while and then eventually stopped.

I think it would be a great programming language if it arrives 5~10 years earlier. Highlights to me are: green thread, TCO, easy distribution, great interop with C, flexibility of choosing between imperative vs immutable data structures.

However, I just couldn't find a good use case for it. For embedded programming, I would always choose Lua if not using Zig/Rust directly. For low latency backend stuff, I can use Clojure or NodeJS, which are much more performant and mature (Janet's performance is roughly on the same level with Lua without JIT).

For general latency insensitive backend projects, there are just too many choices nowadays and Janet doesn't shine enough.

If it arrives 10 years ago with these feature sets, I would love it!

Re: The Janet Programming Language

#35

Post by codesections »

galfarragem wrote: post #12
andi999 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. 'Think Lua' is not an good explanation. I mean if I want Lua, I use Lua.

FWIW, Janet's creator previous project was Fennel[0], a lisp that compiles to Lua. [0] https://github.com/bakpakin/Fennel

Though note that the Fennel repo is now at https://sr.ht/~technomancy/fennel/

Re: The Janet Programming Language

#36

Post by eitland »

Interestingly when submitting the latest tar.gz to Virustotal, Microsoft claims it contains Wacatac.B!ml

Submitting one file at at time doesn't trigger it.

Even packing up all the binaries and submitting that doesn't trigger is (and neither does packing up the rest of the files abd submitting them.)

So I'm going to ignore MS on this one since no one else found anything suspicious either.

Re: The Janet Programming Language

#37

Post by okkdev »

galfarragem wrote: post #16
masklinn wrote: post #7

That's a weird language. At first glance it looks like a hyper-imperative lisp (except turns out it doesn't Process LISts).

It's dead easy to get started. If you want to spend an hour playing with a "lisp" you're only a small download away. Clojure could learn a thing of two from this.. It's also not dogmatic. You can use mutable and immutable versions of the same data structure. Docs are concise: https://janet-lang.org/docs/index.html Full API is here: https://janet-lang.org/api/index.html [edit] I fully agree that "getting started" on C…

Racket is also just 1 download away and even comes with an IDE.

Re: The Janet Programming Language

#38

Post by skohan »

iddan wrote: post #20
mrkramer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they naming programming languages after their girlfriends and wives? :)

In an interview with InfoWorld in April 2012, Karpinski said of the name "Julia": "There's no good reason, really. It just seemed like a pretty name."[

At least that's what he told his wife

Re: The Janet Programming Language

#40

Post by lightbendover »

jdmoreira wrote: post #27
andi999 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows? But could you point exactly to where it says why I should care about this language? Let's say I want to convince a cto to adopt it, what would be the edge one could/would gain? Maybe it has some exceptional libraries? Or GC pauses are deterministic, or whatever. I mean this landing page is/should be their 2 minutes sales pitch.

It’s not like they are trying to sell anything. And who cares what your CTO wants to adopt? Some people simply enjoy computers and are not looking for external validation. Spin up your jvm/.net bloatware and code yet another CRUD application and leave us alone.

The way people are coming out of the woodwork to aggressively dismiss someone asking about why they would use Janet over other alternatives makes it pretty apparent that there is nothing novel about this language, no reason to learn yet another scripting in a sea of choices, and a lot of over-invested individuals. You people are everything wrong with tech.
Post reply on HN