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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I'm curious, which Lisp did you end up choosing?
I'm still looking around, but Owl is a frontrunner.
If the bigger runtime isn't a deal breaker, maybe look at Racket.
Racket has great documentation but unfortunately even its creatures have moved in to Rhombus which is a non lisp.
Not so sure anyone is using Rhombus besides the few people working on it.
That's always the case for new languages :-)
Language adoption takes time.
Besides Rhombus is still in the integration phase
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.