Thats a lot of opening/closing parentheses.
Could you count how many you got in your favorite programming language vs Janet/LISP?
It looks like a difference of somewhere between 7,239 to 32,767 per screenful of code.
The Janet Programming Language
71–80 of 124 posts
Re: The Janet Programming Language
#72Is it related to the Jackson programming language?
That's an interesting question, since Jackson was literally developed by someone named Michael Jackson.
Re: The Janet Programming Language
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's also not dogmatic. You can use mutable and immutable versions of the same data structure. However from their description and the complexity promises it looks like the immutable collections are literally just the mutable ones without mutation ability (similar to Java's immutable* wrappers) which greatly limits their effective usefulness. > Full API is here: https://janet-lang.org/api/index.html Sadly even worse…
> Sadly even worse than clojure's which is already not great. I thought Clojure's immutable collections were generally considered good. What else would you consider "great"? Edit: or was that a complaint about the quality of the documentation, not the quality of the immutable collections?
> Edit: or was that a complaint about the quality of the documentation, not the quality of the immutable collections?
Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear.
Re: The Janet Programming Language
#74What is with new programming languages with women's names? It seems a bit cringey to me, like the guy in my first-year cs classes who would name variables after his girlfriend.
That's like people getting tattoos showing the name of their favorite programming language. Those always get covered over with MOM.
Re: The Janet Programming Language
#75Re: The Janet Programming Language
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's also not dogmatic. You can use mutable and immutable versions of the same data structure. However from their description and the complexity promises it looks like the immutable collections are literally just the mutable ones without mutation ability (similar to Java's immutable* wrappers) which greatly limits their effective usefulness. > Full API is here: https://janet-lang.org/api/index.html Sadly even worse…
> which greatly limits their effective usefulness. Interesting Why? And what’s the alternative implementation?
Persistent collections with structural sharing (b-trees, HAMT, RRB-vectors, …).
I can absolutely understand not using them if the implementation is intended to be simple or the systems it's running on is resource limited, but simply removing the mutation bits of mutable collections is quite limiting as it incurs large overhead when actually working with them (you have to copy the entire thing every time you want to update anything).
Unless the collections are always kept quite small: modern architectures are very good at dense arrays, so modern immutable data structures are trees of small-ish arrays (usually a small number of dozens, IIRC Clojure uses 32-wide nodes).
Re: The Janet Programming Language
#77Re: The Janet Programming Language
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
...or themselves, you sexist! (I jest. Three times, in fact.)
I forgot about that sorry. I know only of COBOL that is made by women all other programming languages are pretty much made by men.
Smalltalk was definitely created by women (and men, too). That has affected many other languages, including objective-c.
Re: The Janet Programming Language
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way people are coming out of the woodwork to aggressively dismiss someone asking about why they would use Janet over other alternatives makes it pretty apparent that there is nothing novel about this language, no reason to learn yet another scripting in a sea of choices, and a lot of over-invested individuals. You people are everything wrong with tech.
It’s the most voted submission on HN right now. We gather here because we like this stuff. And here you are wasting your time accusing us of being everything that’s wrong with tech. The thing you fail to understand is that we aren’t in this for the money or the validation or the status. We simply like fiddling with computers, languages, etc. Computers were my hobby way before they were my job.
It's great that you like playing with computers, languages, etc. Nobody is minimizing that. But, many people who see a new computer language want to know what is unique about it.
It is completely valid to ask, "why should I use Janet (the language)?" Many people are familiar with or expert with many programming paradigms and have written their own DSLs or general purpose languages. Others are expert in fields that intersect with languages and want to know if there is specific applicability to their domain.
Seeing a new language that doesn't solve a unique problem or solve a problem in a novel way is often a complete non-starter. For that reason, many people expect a page on a new language to state the purpose of the language, even if the purpose is, "I wanted to play with writing a langauge." That's cool, too.
I'm pretty sure that is why several people have asked that question.
Re: The Janet Programming Language
#80Janet is a cool language. Back in March, we managed to port it to Cosmopolitan Libc so you can build Janet code as an Actually Portable Executable. Here's the diff you need: https://github.com/janet-lang/janet/compare/master...ahgamut... The Janet team helped us identify a lot of things we needed improve with our C library implemention too! While we've ported other languages too, like Python, Lua, etc. those users wi…
That is cool! Other commentators were asking about good use cases, and living in Cosmopolitan seems to fit the bill.
I like the language, except I have never liked the “low parenthesis” Common Lisp loop/for macros, which Janet’s “for” loop reminds me of. Pardon the stylistic nit-pick.