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

91–100 of 203 posts

Re: The Janet Language

#91

Post by xigoi »

return_to_monke wrote: post #43
dragonwriter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

vaguely kinda related. I want to like lisp for its features but the syntax is too much for me to pick up without serious time investment, which I am not sure I want to make. are there any other languages that support for example lisp-like interactive REPL, eg analyzing program state while it is running?

Funnily, I'm the exact opposite. I love the simple and consistent syntax of Lisp, but I don't want to use a dynamically typed language if I can avoid it.

Re: The Janet Language

#92

Post by xigoi »

andsoitis wrote: post #55
mbnull wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you also say that musicians should only create and perform popular music?

absolutely not! people should do whatever they want but if you’re going to make atonal music in a non-traditional scale, you shouldn’t be surprised if you have a limited audience.

So? Nobody is surprised that lisps aren't popular.

Re: The Janet Language

#93

Post by xigoi »

dvh wrote: post #21
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.

var distance = sqrt(x * x + y * y) That is something very similar they may had in high school.

Math notation also features one-letter variable names, weak typing and lots of ambiguity. Do you want those in code?

Re: The Janet Language

#94

Post by nordsieck »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #71
gigatexal wrote: post #67

The lisp style syntax is jarring

Honestly, to me it is unreadable. Defining function inside a function inside yet another function where you use a for loop kind of function. It requires a much different line of thinking to be applicable in the real world, which goes against historic human nature of following specific instructions, one instruction at a time.

> Honestly, to me it is unreadable. Defining function inside a function inside yet another function where you use a for loop kind of function.

Perhaps you think the same thing about JS where that was (and maybe still is?) a common idiom. Except that people didn't give those functions names.

And for sure, it's possible to do it in all sorts of languages: python, ruby, js, go, and of course lisp

I get that the syntax is "weird", but honestly, the only two real difference is that the parens are "on the wrong side" for functions/expressions, and the indentation is truncated (the trailing side of the paren pyramid is accumulated and stuck to the end of the last functional line).

Re: The Janet Language

#95

Post by auggierose »

oblio wrote: post #41
beepbooptheory wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time when computerey people prided themselves in not being "normal." You can take your normie rust, I'm quite happy with my parentheses.

Turns out, even computer things are social since we're at our best when apes work together to build complex things.

That is true, unfortunately most apes just build messy things these days. So, select your tribe with care.

Re: The Janet Language

#96

Post by iLoveOncall »

xigoi wrote: post #89
iLoveOncall wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> surprised it has so few stars and I've never seen it talked about here Why? It's a niche language in a dated syntax, with use cases already covered by other languages. You will downvote because you don't like that, but it doesn't make it less true.

How is the syntax dated? I'd argue that S-expressions are timeless.

((Oh,) (I (don't (know.))) (Just (a (random (thought (I (got.))))

Re: The Janet Language

#97

Post by gus_massa »

andsoitis wrote: post #46
tasuki wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Are you also saying math notation is good? If mathematics notation were as terrible, horrible ad you say, wouldn’t mathematicians have changed it by now?

Math notation is terrible! I write like 4 or 6 midterms for Algebra and Calculus for the first year in the university. We are using LaTeX (for most of them), but we need to write LaTeX assuming the copy machine is not very well maintained.

For example, we can't write $e^{-\frac{x}{2}}$ because the minus and the bar of the fraction may not be clearly separated. Also x and 2 will be too small. A solution is to use \dfrac to make them bigger, but the 2D structure of the formula will make the e and 2 be too close and confusing. After some year of trying, one of my coworkers insisted in using $e^{-x/2}$ that is ugly but copy-machine-poof.

We also need huge integrals for $\int_0^7\dfrac{1}{1+x^2}\ dx$. The standard one is too small. I tried to write a macro for that, but the 0 and the 7 must be in weird positions. Also, there are too many cases, because the limits may be missing. Finally, we are using https://ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/bigints with some tiny macro to rename it to \lint because I don't like the names the author used.

The math notation is very good to write in dead tree paper with a pencil in 2D, but in 1D with a keyboard or automatic processing is horrible.

Re: The Janet Language

#99

Post by mike_hock »

ianthehenry wrote: post #9

Oh hey! Nice to see this on the front page here. I love Janet -- I've been using it for about year and a half, and it's now my go-to scripting language when I need something more powerful than bash, or when I want to hack on goofy little side project (some examples in my profile). Parsing expression grammars (think, like, declarative parser combinators?) are a really great feature for ad-hoc text parsing -- and nicer…

I went there, saw the Lisp syntax, and noped back out.

Re: The Janet Language

#100

Post by jb1991 »

injidup wrote: post #90
jb1991 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…anything that requires hashing as a fundamental part of the guarantee. Which happens to be quite a lot of the structures most of us use every day. Sets, maps, etc.

Sets and maps do not required hashing. Specifically std::map and std::set in the C++ standard library are based on ordered trees.

They’re often called “hash sets” or “hash maps” in other languages - they are called this for a reason, and certainly not because they could be implemented as a list.

std::map is not a good example anyway, you want to consider std::unordered_map for a more appropriate comparison. C++ is weird that way. (What C++ calls a map is not what most languages call a map. std::map doesn’t even satisfy O(1). You’d be surprised how many working C++ developers don’t even realize the unnecessary performance cost they take when they decide to use std::map, because it’s not a proper hash map. )

But this thread is not about the finer differences in implementation of maps but rather whether or not they are basically just lists. They are not.

Post reply on HN