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

101–110 of 292 posts

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#101

Post by layer8 »

probably_wrong wrote: post #18
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.t…

> Whoever finds a reliable way to keep AI out of an online community first is likely to become a very rich person.

I believe it’s the opposite: You have to pay competent human moderators. Like here on HN.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#102

Post by layer8 »

ponkpanda wrote: post #63
probably_wrong wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.t…

Perhaps requiring webauthn credential for any post/comment with a whitelist of permitted webauthn hardware devices which must have touch/interaction enabled. I'd have to read the FIDO specs, however the only place I've seen webauthn hardware pinning in the wild is with Azure AD/Entra which is ostensibly based on token GUID. If this is the only enforcement mechanism available, it's spoofable.

This would result in hardware farms of such devices being automatically operated, like the existing iPhone farms used for similar purposes.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#103

Post by adrian_b »

embedding-shape wrote: post #55
0x0203 wrote: post #32

Seems some of the listed advantages for Janet would also apply for tcl (small/simple, easy to learn, embeddable, usable as a shell, great for domain specific languages). It would be interesting, to me at least, to see a fan of Janet compare the two.

I've only used Tcl briefly, mostly for automation which it's great at. But it's a Algol-like imperative language, doesn't have any type of macros and makes everything based on strings (which makes sense for automation) instead of lists, with all the tradeoffs that comes with. It seems easier to figure out what the similarities are, because I think they're pretty few, they seem to differ more than they are similar.

Tcl being based on strings creates the same problems like in bash scripts, i.e. it is too easy to misuse the quotation rules, leading to subtle bugs.

Using for scripting LISP-like languages is much more foolproof, especially for more complex scripts.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#105

Post by layer8 »

drob518 wrote: post #87
maleldil wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why Lisp's history would necessarily imply the family is worth learning in 2026. What (other than macros) do lisps offer that other modern languages don't?

You don’t program in Lisp, do you? I used to be confused by the smug Lisp weenies. Now I am one. And the difficult thing I’ve found over the years is that Lisp is sort of unexplainable. You either “get it” or you don’t. Yes, it has macros, but macros are a bit overrated. I’ve been programming in Lisp for decades and I rarely write macros. I think the thing that is difficult to convey is how powerful Lisp’s core execu…

There are reasons why not that many programmers “get it”, and it’s not because the others are uninformed. It’s a matter of valuing different things.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#107

Post by ux266478 »

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:…

> How fast is it?

Roughly as fast as puc-rio Lua. It won't blow your socks off, but it's more than respectable.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#108

Post by petee »

declan_roberts wrote: post #83
ramblurr wrote: post #33

Always nice to see janet getting some attention. shout out to one modern feature: sandbox "Disable feature sets to prevent the interpreter from using certain system resources. Once a feature is disabled, there is no way to re-enable it." https://janet-lang.org/api/misc.html#sandbox

It's a really cool feature but what is a scenario when your average programmer needs such sandboxing?

The TIC-80 game engine embeds Janet, and if i recall sandboxes the games created

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#109

Post by layer8 »

xigoi wrote: post #19
rambrrest wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That just moves the subtle and often arbitrary differences to the functions and macros you use.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#110

Post by cdelsolar »

drob518 wrote: post #87
maleldil wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why Lisp's history would necessarily imply the family is worth learning in 2026. What (other than macros) do lisps offer that other modern languages don't?

You don’t program in Lisp, do you? I used to be confused by the smug Lisp weenies. Now I am one. And the difficult thing I’ve found over the years is that Lisp is sort of unexplainable. You either “get it” or you don’t. Yes, it has macros, but macros are a bit overrated. I’ve been programming in Lisp for decades and I rarely write macros. I think the thing that is difficult to convey is how powerful Lisp’s core execu…

this is incredibly smug, but fun to read :) I briefly "got" Clojure but forgot again. Maybe I'll give this Janet thing a try.
Post reply on HN