41–50 of 203 posts
[flagged]
> Normal people don't like lisp, it looks weird. Have you considered that this is perhaps not a problem with lisp? Normal people do not much like writing computer programs at all.
[flagged]
> I feel the need to say it every time I see new lisp-like language. Normal people don't like lisp, it looks weird. 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…
are there any other languages that support for example lisp-like interactive REPL, eg analyzing program state while it is running?
[flagged]
> I feel the need to say it every time I see new lisp-like language. Normal people don't like lisp, it looks weird. 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…
even many (most?) computing enthusiasts aren’t into lisp. I am. Since this language is lisp-y but not deeply lisp, you’re now finding that not only are anti-lispers put off, but also lispers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
var distance = sqrt(x * x + y * y) That is something very similar they may had in high school.
Math notation is familiar, yes. Are you also saying math notation is good? Is it an example to emulate? 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.
If mathematics notation were as terrible, horrible ad you say, wouldn’t mathematicians have changed it by now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 data structure isn't just a list with extra steps?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm pretty sure GP meant Closure, considering the language has matching immutable data structures for mutable ones [^1] and even its own (limited) version of EDN called JDN. It’s definitely also inspired by it. [^1]: https://janet-lang.org/docs/data_structures/index.html
Closure is not a language so hopefully not?
> the language has matching immutable data structures for mutable ones [^1]
Looking at the lingo being used, the extremely limited breadth of ABI, and the complexity they assert around "immutable" data structures, they're clearly imperative data structures you can't mutate rather than the persistent data structures you'd expect from a strong clj inspiration.
This page looks a lot more like a description of python datatypes than clojure, the only bit that Python lacks is an official frozendict.
This is really cool, surprised it has so few stars and I've never seen it talked about here. I like the LISPs but I've always thought not having a CPython type thing was a bit of a deal breaker for making it a go-to "primary" language that I would use everyday. I'm definitely going to try with Janet though.
What cpython type thing? Do you mean a rich(er) set of built-in datatypes?
Because lots of lisps have that, some (e.g. clojure) also have reader macros for pseudo-literals.
Even Scheme has had a built-in hashmap since R6RS (2007), and R5RS implementations usually provided hashmaps even if they were not spec-defined. Common Lisp has had a hashmap more or less all along (at least since before ANSI standardisation)
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.
It has some of the affordances of the former in terms of semantics, but is stripped down and friendly like Lua.
The use cases also seem to overlap with Lua, as a fast, embeddable scripting language that you can easily keep in your head (see docs).
It seems to be simpler than Lua because it doesn’t complect arrays and dicts into tables, as arrays are a separate construct. And it affords you with immutable versions of those.
To me it looks like a Clojure-like for Lua use cases.