News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:I Wrote "Janet for Mortals" by behnamoh on Wednesday November 27, 2024 @09:14AM (#42256228)
I've read the book and I found it very fascinating and kind of playful, which actually makes learning the Janet program language much more fun. However, I found the documentation of the language lacking in many ways. Oftentimes there are functions or commands that are just there, but there's no example or explanation. or explanation as to what they do. In fact, there are a lot of those that I found in the book, but I couldn't find in the documentation. So this is one of the reasons I stopped learning Janet, even though I really like the idea of this language, and the fact that it has many sane defaults and similarities to mainstream languages instead of like adhering to archaic Lisp conventions. At the end of the day, it's not actually a LISP because it's not cons lists. And it is fine by me, but again, I found the language not fully documented.
Re:I Wrote "Janet for Mortals" by alectroem on Wednesday November 27, 2024 @12:25PM (#42257812)
Do you remember any of the functions/commands that were not documented? I'm semi active in the Janet community and would be able to work on improving the docs where its lacking!
Re:I Wrote "Janet for Mortals" by Lyngbakr on Wednesday November 27, 2024 @01:40PM (#42258505)
I had exactly the same experience (minus reading the book). Often, I'd just see the function signature and no further explanation. I do realise that it takes a lot of time and effort to build up extensive docs, but it happened enough that I put it down and started looking for another Lisp that compiles down to a binary.
Re:I Wrote "Janet for Mortals" by behnamoh on Wednesday November 27, 2024 @03:18PM (#42259326)
I'm curious, which Lisp did you end up choosing?
Re:I Wrote "Janet for Mortals" by Lyngbakr on Wednesday November 27, 2024 @03:20PM (#42259342)
I'm still looking around, but Owl is a frontrunner.
Re:I Wrote "Janet for Mortals" by cess11 on Wednesday November 27, 2024 @03:41PM (#42259529)
If the bigger runtime isn't a deal breaker, maybe look at Racket.
Re:I Wrote "Janet for Mortals" by behnamoh on Wednesday November 27, 2024 @05:21PM (#42260381)
Racket has great documentation but unfortunately even its creatures have moved in to Rhombus which is a non lisp.
Re:I Wrote "Janet for Mortals" by cess11 on Thursday November 28, 2024 @01:07AM (#42262850)
Not so sure anyone is using Rhombus besides the few people working on it.
Re:I Wrote "Janet for Mortals" by soegaard on Thursday November 28, 2024 @09:51AM (#42265653)
That's always the case for new languages :-) Language adoption takes time.

Besides Rhombus is still in the integration phase

https://github.com/racket/rhombus/discussions/521

Re:I Wrote "Janet for Mortals" by soegaard on Thursday November 28, 2024 @09:48AM (#42265633)
Have you tried Rhombus?

It feels like a lisp - just without the S-expression syntax.

Also, having Rhombus doesn't mean Racket is abandonned. Far from it. Rhombus is built on top of Racket - and has gained a few nifty features in the process.