2 ms·
I've also played with it but it's still feels like a toy language? Not particulary fast and also the messages are not particulary useful when you make syntax er
by petre 5y ago
I've also played with it but it's still feels like a toy language? Not particulary fast and also the messages are not particulary useful when you make syntax errors. Some aspects of it are nice though. If you come from imperative programming background, it's easier to write code in Janet compared to Scheme. Easier to use than Racket, but then again Racket has lots of features and libraries: PEG, regexps, pattern matching, you name it. So I feel like my time is better invested learning Racket instead?
- matvore 5y agoI wasn't looking for something fast, as I'm happy to write some code in C anyway for something performance-sensitive, and most of the stuff I was going to write in Janet would be for interactive use. I was more interested in having a simple VM and a language that wasn't piling on new features every release like mainstream blub languages. I also wanted a language that gave a straightforward mental model without an opinionated philosophy that tried to protect me from mutability and other real-world things (hence I didn't really want to go with Haskell and ~purely functional languages). FWIW I also think the syntax errors in Janet are somewhat hard to grok. > So I feel like my time is better invested learning Racket instead? I think it depends. If you want a language you can always rely on for 99% of use cases, something that covers many bases makes sense. For me, I wanted more of a fill-in-the-gaps language where neither C nor /bin/sh scripting make sense (e.g. stuff I may run on Windows or something heavy in string-handling).