Live data from Hacker News

Why Janet? (2023)

ianthehenry.com

21–30 of 292 posts

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#21
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:…

Are you aware of:

https://docs.racket-lang.org/sweet/index.html

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#22
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.

> a new syntax

How is the syntax new?

It looks like lispy - see the outer parens in the examples given.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#23
post #7

The embeddability sounds very appealing. Does anyone have experience with using this somewhere one might traditionally reach for Lua?

I have built a markup language with embedded scripting in Janet. I originally tried to use Lua, but found the verbosity extremely frustrating.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#24

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.

> not being for mortals at all.

I had that with Haskell. Although, while Haskell is too hard for me, I actually like its syntax.

Janet seems to be Lisp 2.0, so the syntax is lispy.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#25

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.

Probably depends on whom you are asking. For me the essence is (1) having functions or procedures as the basic building blocks, not classes. (2) Having all the utility and higher order functions you need to deal with the functions and procedures first idea. (3) Having a very powerful syntax, that allows great semantic editing and is never ambiguous. Oh and can actually be extended in useful ways, without having to wait for a committee to decide upon "the one syntax to rule them all".

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#26
post #8

> Instead of regular expressions, Janet’s text wrangling is based around parsing expression grammars. Parsing expression grammars are simpler, more powerful, and more predictable than regular expressions. I would dispute that this is the case. In PEGs, alternatives are not commutative, unlike in regular expressions. This can lead to quite frustrating debugging. While a valid choice, the advantage over REs is overstat…

Came here for this comment. Janet would score positively in my mind if the evolutionary dead-end PEG were replaced with a grammar parser that is known to work under all circumstances.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#27
Excellent. Although I suspect the author of the programming language invented this Janet for all the perfect puns. Yes, Janet. No. Janet.

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#29
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…

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

Re: Why Janet? (2023)

#30
post #8

> Instead of regular expressions, Janet’s text wrangling is based around parsing expression grammars. Parsing expression grammars are simpler, more powerful, and more predictable than regular expressions. I would dispute that this is the case. In PEGs, alternatives are not commutative, unlike in regular expressions. This can lead to quite frustrating debugging. While a valid choice, the advantage over REs is overstat…

PEGs are just soooo much easier to read than regexes for anything more complex than a few words or single line matching. REs are a hammer that tempts people to see everything as a nail, but once one progresses beyond that phase one usually wants as few REs as possible.
Post reply on HN