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

191–200 of 292 posts

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#191

Post by Karrot_Kream »

janetacarr wrote: post #122

I have my qualms with Janet. Mostly, it's lack of package management versioning and lack of libraries in general (advanced HTTP routing, etc). I do LOVE that Janet can create binaries with JPM, scripts, and is very portable. I once put the Janet programming language on the Playdate game console as POC. I actually do enjoy writing Janet, but every time I do people think I created the language (I did not).

If you want server side, as veqq says there's joy which implements its own lightweight http server. If you want a client, it's quite trivial to use the Janet C API to wrap libcurl or any other HTTP client. If you're open to LLM development have the LLM write the wrappers and write your actual logic in Janet.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#192

Post by usefulcat »

geokon wrote: post #29
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…

lobste.rs uses a web-of-trust referral system. I guess it still involves a moderator killing off bad nodes, but it seems to scale well

> it seems to scale well

This seems hard to say without knowing how large it is. To me, it seems like a relatively small community, far smaller than HN anyway.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#193

Post by ramblurr »

janetacarr wrote: post #122

I have my qualms with Janet. Mostly, it's lack of package management versioning and lack of libraries in general (advanced HTTP routing, etc). I do LOVE that Janet can create binaries with JPM, scripts, and is very portable. I once put the Janet programming language on the Playdate game console as POC. I actually do enjoy writing Janet, but every time I do people think I created the language (I did not).

Have you tried jeep?

https://github.com/pyrmont/jeep/

It let's you vendor deps and easily install modern Janet bundles without jpm.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#194

Post by ASalazarMX »

andrewflnr wrote: post #126
makkes wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web of trust has been a miserable failure because of the GPG's horrible UX and high entry barrier. It's dead, Jim.

I think they were referring to invitation trees like lobste.rs.

That's for children. Make the Pope a certification authority, and he can certify people he trusts, and so on, until the chain reaches you. When you commit a sin, your certificate gets revoked, along with its children.

It would give the web of trust a flair of biblical damnnation, and after your fall you could always seek a new certification authority more aligned with your values, like Milei or Putin.

When a world leader dies, the tree pruning would be almost apocaliptic.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#195

Post by phainopepla2 »

21asdffdsa12 wrote: post #74
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…

Pay per interaction model? 1 cent per post.

I think pay per account (like the Metafilter model) would be better. If you charge $10 for lifetime access and ban slop-posters, it quickly becomes expensive to be a slop merchant

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#196

Post by cptmurphy »

veqq wrote: post #172
janetacarr wrote: post #122

I have my qualms with Janet. Mostly, it's lack of package management versioning and lack of libraries in general (advanced HTTP routing, etc). I do LOVE that Janet can create binaries with JPM, scripts, and is very portable. I once put the Janet programming language on the Playdate game console as POC. I actually do enjoy writing Janet, but every time I do people think I created the language (I did not).

> advanced HTTP routing What do you concretely mean by this? I use https://github.com/joy-framework/joy for all web stuff and can probably get your missing features in within the week.

TLS. There are some curl wrappers but last time I checked they did not work

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#197

Post by iLemming »

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.

> studied them in school - but i quickly forgot and never got around

Because industry lied to you, promising "simplicity and riches". The industry didn't just overcomplicate programming. It institutionalized the complication. Why? Because complexity is a moat.

Complex frameworks need certified experts. Certified experts charge more. Companies built around expertise need the complexity to persist. So the complexity gets marketed as sophistication.

They've promised: "Java/C# will get you hired anywhere", but you're hired to write xml (these days yaml). "OOP models the real world", they said. The real world doesn't have abstract factory visitors. "Design patterns make you senior", but you only learned workarounds for language deficiencies. "Learn the framework, get the job". Framework dies, you start over. "Specialization is valuable". you're now hostage to one ecosystem.

A programmer who understands fundamentals is dangerous to this system. The fundamentals:

- a function transforms input to output.

- composition builds complexity from simplicity.

- types describe what's possible.

- effects should be explicit.

And then you realize that Lisp is the skeleton key. All that above is Lisp, or came from Lisp. Every language is either: Lisp with different syntax, or C with different syntax, or arguing between the two.

If you learn Lisp, you don't learn a language. You learn what languages are. You're no longer a consumer of a programming language or two, or a few. You are native speaker in all of them.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#198

Post by Linux-Fan »

crumpled wrote: post #134
matheusmoreira wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think someone should start a community online where AI isnt allowed. That's lobsters I guess. AI posts got banned there after a 300+ comment discussion, probably the biggest ever on the site. The exact rule the moderators settled on was "meaningful human authorship" but don't be fooled: a lot of people on lobsters are ideologically opposed to LLMs. Doesn't matter how "meaningfully" the technology was applied. My…

on my way!

I like the Lobsters stance on AI. Also posts are tagged hence you can decide for yourself if the topic may be interesting despite being touched by AI.

I haven't found a way to join Lobsters yet hence for the meantime I keep posting here only. Not so much of an issue since I am mostly a happy lurker.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#199

Post by cmrdporcupine »

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…

Honestly... it's entirely possible to "get" Lisp and at the same time not really see anything that compelling about it for doing your own work.

I "get" Lisp just fine, have made my own hobby Lisp interpreters, have written programs in Lisp, am an emacs user, etc. etc.

And yet if you handed me a terminal and an editor and asked me to write a program, I would never reach for Lisp to do it. My eyes don't like it. (Also I like static types).

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#200

Post by wmedrano »

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.

I started writing a Scheme interpreter about a year ago and got pretty far. I dropped it a few months back since I got a new job.

I'm thinking of getting back and am wondering if the niche (and difficult for me to implement) features are worth it. I might be better off skipping dynamic-unwind, maybe even ripping out call/cc, in favor working on the debugability, ecosystem, performance, and package management story.

Post reply on HN