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

The Janet Language

janet-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 203 posts

Re: The Janet Language

#21

Post by dvh »

rurban wrote: post #19
dvh wrote: post #18

[flagged]

Normal people prefer syntax-less, unambiguous lisp-languages over the mess we have now. Just look at Javascript, rust or C++ and tell me normal people prefer that. Only worse languages win, because people are masochochists, but throwing away this possible user base is always a win.

var distance = sqrt(x * x + y * y)

That is something very similar they may had in high school.

Re: The Janet Language

#22

Post by tgv »

rurban wrote: post #19
dvh wrote: post #18

[flagged]

Normal people prefer syntax-less, unambiguous lisp-languages over the mess we have now. Just look at Javascript, rust or C++ and tell me normal people prefer that. Only worse languages win, because people are masochochists, but throwing away this possible user base is always a win.

Yes, they do prefer JS over Lisp.

> throwing away this possible user base is always a win.

Ok, then.

Re: The Janet Language

#25

Post by apetrovic »

rurban wrote: post #19
dvh wrote: post #18

[flagged]

Normal people prefer syntax-less, unambiguous lisp-languages over the mess we have now. Just look at Javascript, rust or C++ and tell me normal people prefer that. Only worse languages win, because people are masochochists, but throwing away this possible user base is always a win.

Yoir sample of "normal people" is vastly different than mine.

Re: The Janet Language

#26

Post by sph »

dvh wrote: post #18

[flagged]

i do not get why they keep writing heavy metal music. "Normal people" (sic) do not like it.

Are metal bands aware of that? They are throwing away a sizeable portion of fans and record sales.

--

I'm not sure you're acting in good faith when you say normal people hate Lisp, thus it's only weirdos that use it. There is no constructive discussion to be had here.

Re: The Janet Language

#27

Post by rurban »

apetrovic wrote: post #25
rurban wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal people prefer syntax-less, unambiguous lisp-languages over the mess we have now. Just look at Javascript, rust or C++ and tell me normal people prefer that. Only worse languages win, because people are masochochists, but throwing away this possible user base is always a win.

Yoir sample of "normal people" is vastly different than mine.

Good so

Re: The Janet Language

#29

Post by pmoriarty »

I love Lisp (particularly Scheme), and heard that Janet was strongly inspired by Lisp and is "really Lisp underneath", but is really fast and strong at math, so I thought I'd give it a try, and after learning it I started wondering to myself, "why am I not simply using Lisp?"

Though arguably lispy, Janet just wasn't lispy enough for me. It was missing the simple, elegant sexp syntax I dearly loved, and I started to wonder what huge win I was getting from using it instead of just using Lisp or Scheme? Having not found a good answer, I did just that.

That was the last time I bothered trying to learn a "Lisp-like" language that wasn't actually a Lisp, and decided to just stick to Lisp/Scheme. They do everything I need, are good at math, and are plenty fast enough for me.

Re: The Janet Language

#30

Post by haspok »

BWStearns wrote: post #5

So this is kind of like a lightweight non-jvm clojure? I like it. Looks like it could be a nice swiss army knife for data munging.

You mean Python, not Clojure. A number of key underpinnings, such as (almost) exclusively immutable datastructures are missing from this language.

It is more of a Python with a LISP syntax.

Post reply on HN