Janet – a Lisp-like functional, imperative programming language

Post by actuallyalys » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:10 PM UTC

ianthehenry wrote: post #20

spsesk117 wrote: post #5

This looks really interesting, going to check this out later today. Anyone using Janet for anything that would care to comment on their experience?

I've been writing about my first impressions of the language here: https://ianthehenry.com/posts/janet-game/ Not a whole lot of content yet, but I plan to keep going with it. I am pretty firmly in the Haskell/OCaml "let me program with types" camp for most development, but it's a great to have a little scripting language to reach for instead of bash or Python or Perl. Using Janet (coming from Python) reminds me a bit…

Post by coldtea » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

lispm wrote: post #73

ianthehenry wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think of it as one of the defining features of Smalltalk, not Lisp, although there is plenty of cross-pollination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk#Image-based_persiste... Janet's object system seems to be modeled after ideas first popularized in the Self language -- a Smalltalk derivative -- so there could be some direct inspiration there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(programming_language)

LISP I from 1960. http://bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/rle_lisp/LISP_I_Programmers_Man... page 67: SET card '...the state of the memory as it stands is read out onto tape 8 as the new "base" image for the memory...'

Post by pjmlp » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #104

lispm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LISP I from 1960. http://bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/rle_lisp/LISP_I_Programmers_Man... page 67: SET card '...the state of the memory as it stands is read out onto tape 8 as the new "base" image for the memory...'

Damn, why don't we have programming environments with such capabilities today? (the kind @pjmlp mentioned "images, REPL with typo suggestions, OS wide debugging, code browser", etc." and so on) Not in the @pjmlp kind of availability ("Why you say that? There's this commercial language envinronment from a company in rural Austria that all of 100 companies use and all of 1000 people ever heard of that gives you exactly…

Post by Barrin92 » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

avgcorrection wrote: post #98

Barrin92 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>not-a-woman given that the character of the show in question is an archetypal secretary arguing it's not a woman is a fairly big stretch. Not only is it a woman, it's a woman embodying a female stereotype, (in line with the purpose of the language, being an easy helper), and the 60s art deco woman's magazine style logo

Can’t decide if “if it looks like a female secretary then it’s a woman” is progressive or backwards.

Post by bluefox » Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #88

dragonwriter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, you can write functional style code, but you can write functional style code in C, C++, Java, Python, JS, Ruby, Common Lisp, Scheme, etc etc. That does not make any of these languages 'functional'. Lisp-family languages (both CL and its immediate predecessors, and Scheme) for a long time were the textbook example of functional languages. The relatively novel (and still niche) attempt to redefine things so that…

This is not correct, lisp operations on lists have always been to modify in place, with copying versions added later. The technology did not exist to do functional programming efficiently enough (and to some extent that technology still does not exist generally).

  (union (lambda (x y) (cond ((null x) y) ((member
         (car x) y) (union (cdr x) y)) (t (cons (car x)
         (union (cdr x) y))))))

  maplist[x;fn]=[null[x]->NIL;
                 t->cons[fn[x];maplist[cdr[x];fn]]]

  append[x;y] = [null[x] -> y; T -> cons[car[x]; append[cdr[x];y]]]