31–40 of 203 posts
[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.
[flagged]
So? Normal people aren’t computing enthusiasts, so...
> Are lisp-like language designers aware of that?
No, lisp-like language designers have never hears the parenphobes that jump into every discussion of lisp-like languages to make their feelings known.
Also, no one involved in Python, YAML, etc., has ever heard anyone complain about indent-sensitive syntax.
> You are throwing away sizeable portion of the possible user base.
Parenphobes are throwing away a sizable portion of their potential toolkit. If they are okay with that, I am sure lisp-like language designers (especially the ones doing it as a labor of love and not getting paid for it) can live with losing the neediest, most entitled segment of their “potential user base”.
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 w…
Those extra bits of syntax that makes it "not a lisp" are mostly around defining "not list" kind if data structures. I find it practical.
[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.
Normal people prefer REBOL, but timing and licensing choices...
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 w…
I think its a pretty nice language. Those extra bits of syntax that makes it "not a lisp" are mostly around defining "not list" kind if data structures. I find it practical.
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 w…
Or maybe your particular Scheme has all of that out of the box, too. Which one do you normally use, if you don't mind?
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.
[^1]: https://janet-lang.org/docs/data_structures/index.html
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 w…
I think its a pretty nice language. Those extra bits of syntax that makes it "not a lisp" are mostly around defining "not list" kind if data structures. I find it practical.
What Janet makes a 'not really a Lisp' is that "LISP" stands for "List Processor". Janet isn't exactly that, since it is not using linked lists as a core data structure - unlike Lisp where its List Processing features are built on top of linked lists made of cons cells.
(1 2 3) is called a "tuple" in Janet and represents something like an immutable array.
[flagged]
Have you considered that this is perhaps not a problem with lisp? Normal people do not much like writing computer programs at all.
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.
var distance = sqrt(x * x + y * y) That is something very similar they may had in high school.
I always thought math notation was atrocious to the point of discouraging me from the subject. Who knows, had mathematics used saner (simpler, consistent, perhaps slightly more verbose) notation, I might've been better at it.