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

Why Janet? (2023)

ianthehenry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 292 posts

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#11

Post by soomtong »

krinne wrote: post #3

This post is refreshing - smells of the pre AI discussions on the internet. A new language, a new syntax, heavy debate with people who have spent years writing code. I think someone should start a community online where AI isnt allowed.

It’s been a few months, but I built a tool by Janet lang to communicate with an LLM via HTTP. Of course, I probably had Claude Code write it for me. It turned out better than I expected.

I was really impressed by how small the executable file was. I’d only ever done web development with Node.js up until then.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#12

Post by graemep »

IshKebab wrote: post #2

Pretty compelling, especially "Janet does not adhere to the ancient customs. CAR is called first. PROGN is called do. LAMBDA is fn, and SETQ is def." - a sign of good sense for sure! How fast is it? Also my main objection to Lisps is still the horrible bracket syntax. Yes it's unambiguous and easy to parse, but it's HORRIBLE to read and edit. I wish this project had been a success (or something similar to it): https:…

Syntax is not that important to me. I prefer Python style indentation, but its really not that important - its just something to get used to for me.

Is static typing that important for a scripting language? From the intro to the book:

> And to be clear, I’m not going to try to convince you to bet your next startup on Janet, or even to use it in any sort of production setting. But I think it’s an excellent language for exploratory programming, scripting, and fun side projects.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#14

Post by rambrrest »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #9
uka wrote: post #4

> But by allowing you to unquote literal functions, Janet makes it possible to write macros that are completely referentially transparent. These lisp guys really get excited over very abstract things. If you say this to an average person on the street they will probably try to run away.

you ever try to explain object oriented programming languages and their benefits to the "average person on the street"?

somehow i also never got the idea around these languages like lisp. I remember i studied them in school - but i quickly forgot and never got around to relearning it.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#15

Post by aeonik »

setopt wrote: post #6
IshKebab wrote: post #2

Pretty compelling, especially "Janet does not adhere to the ancient customs. CAR is called first. PROGN is called do. LAMBDA is fn, and SETQ is def." - a sign of good sense for sure! How fast is it? Also my main objection to Lisps is still the horrible bracket syntax. Yes it's unambiguous and easy to parse, but it's HORRIBLE to read and edit. I wish this project had been a success (or something similar to it): https:…

> Pretty compelling, especially "Janet does not adhere to the ancient customs. CAR is called first. PROGN is called do. LAMBDA is fn, and SETQ is def." - a sign of good sense for sure! Just FYI, many of these are also done in Scheme and its derivative Racket. They kept lambda (but even Python did that), but progn -> begin, setq -> set!, car -> first, and so on. > Also my main objection to Lisps is still the horrible…

I'm starting to prefer the s expression syntax when dealing with tree structures like json.

I wonder if we were raised on tree based algebra if math would be easier to do, or harder.

Like, solve for x.

   (= (+ (* 2 x) 3) 11)
   (= (* 2 x) (- 11 3))
   (= (* 2 x) 8)
   (= x (/ 8 2))
   (= x 4)
Though this isn't too bad.

    (= (+ (pow x 2)
          (pow y 2))
       (pow r 2))

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#16

Post by wodenokoto »

I've been drawn into the Janet posts that surface every once in a while here on HN, but found the otherwise highly praised "Janet for Mortals", not being for mortals at all.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#17

Post by rcarmo »

skeledrew wrote: post #5

This got me thinking of Hy. I wonder how syntactically close they are; there might be an exploitable Python -> Hy -> Janet path here. [0] https://hylang.org/

I used Hy for a long time, then tried Janet, and ultimately realized that I wanted more batteries included but didn't want Python... So I forked https://github.com/rcarmo/go-joker and am tinkering with it until it does all I want.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#18

Post by probably_wrong »

krinne wrote: post #3

This post is refreshing - smells of the pre AI discussions on the internet. A new language, a new syntax, heavy debate with people who have spent years writing code. I think someone should start a community online where AI isnt allowed.

> I think someone should start a community online where AI isnt allowed.

In case you haven't followed the saga, the latest[1] digg.com relaunch failed because they couldn't deal with the bot onslaught [2]. Whoever finds a reliable way to keep AI out of an online community first is likely to become a very rich person.

[1] Second-to-last, actually, seeing as there seems to be a new homepage right now.

[2] https://www.techspot.com/news/111698-digg-relaunch-fails-two...

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#19

Post by xigoi »

rambrrest wrote: post #14
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you ever try to explain object oriented programming languages and their benefits to the "average person on the street"?

somehow i also never got the idea around these languages like lisp. I remember i studied them in school - but i quickly forgot and never got around to relearning it.

The idea is that instead of having to learn tens of different syntactic constructs with subtle and often arbitrary differences, you just have parentheses and use them to build everything.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#20

Post by shevy-java » 

    (defn foo [first & rest] ...)
So basically Lisp 2.0.

Although, this here is a good idea:

"pass values from compile-time to run-time"

Would be nice if some kind of "scripting" language be as fast as a compiled language, but without ruining the syntax. Just about 99% of the languages that are shown, have a horrible syntax. Syntax is not everything, but most language designers don't understand that syntax also matters. So tons of horrible languages emerge. Nobody will use those languages, so 99% of them will die off quickly.

Post reply on HN