Thank you for making an actually relevant point about syntax. I agree with this 100%, and I love Janet, and was recently doing a lot of interactive Janet progra

Thank you for making an actually relevant point about syntax. I agree with this 100%, and I love Janet, and was recently doing a lot of interactive Janet programming for a generative art playground. So I added postfix function application. So instead of (f (g x)), you can write (g x | f). I liked the syntax a lot, but it looked really weird with operators: (calculate x | + 1). So I made operators automatically infix: (calculate x + 1). I also didn't like that the transformation from foo to (foo :something) (record field access) required going back and adding parentheses before the value, so I added foo.something syntax that means the same thing. The result is something that's very easy for me to type and read: (def eyes (eye-shapes | color (c + 0.5) | color (c - (dot normal (normalize eye-target) - 0.72 | clamp -1 0 | step 0)) | color [c.b c.g c.r])) (Excerpt from the logo of https://toodle.studio https://toodle.studio -- https://gist.github.com/ianthehenry/612c980f0db04ea3c2ccab2741475870 https://gist.github.com/ianthehenry/612c980f0db04ea3c2ccab27...) Is this even Janet anymore? I dunno. It's a Janet dialect, and it's implemented as regular old Janet macros. But it's much easier for me to type like this. I recognize that it makes my code necessarily single-player, but that's fine for the sorts of dumb projects that I do for fun. I think a lot of lisp programmers use paredit exactly so that they can write (f (g x)) in the order g x f, but with their editor re-positioning their cursor and taking care of paren-wrapping automatically. But I don't use paredit, and I don't want to wed myself to a particular mode of editing anyway. So I like a syntax that lets me type in the order that I think.