News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Janet for Mortals. Parent comment

Re:Janet for Mortals by ianthehenry on Friday March 31, 2023 @10:55AM (#35388063)
I don't think Janet and Scheme have very much in common. If you're looking for a huge, batteries-included language, you will not have a good time with Janet :)

Janet is much closer to Lua, in scope and applications, than it is to any Scheme or Common Lisp or Clojure implementations.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Janet for Mortals by headhasthoughts on Friday March 31, 2023 @12:57PM (#35389908)
r5rs is significantly smaller than Janet.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Janet for Mortals by Koshkin on Friday March 31, 2023 @04:28PM (#35393154)
This was the last good Scheme.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Janet for Mortals by medo-bear on Friday March 31, 2023 @01:00PM (#35389949)
it seems to me that gebril scheme fits janet's use cases

https://cons.io/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Janet for Mortals by pull_my_finger on Friday March 31, 2023 @04:38PM (#35393307)
Janet has a lot in common with Lua: tables, coroutines, easy embedding, lots of API similarities. Compared to a language like Lua, Janet is bursting with "batteries". Almost to a Ruby level where whenever you think to do something, you check the docs and find yourself saying "of course there's a function for that". I have to disagree completely with your assessment.
[ Parent | on HN ]