3 ms·
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
by behnamoh 2y ago
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.
- alectroem 2y agoDo 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!
- Lyngbakr 2y agoI 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.
- behnamoh 2y agoI'm curious, which Lisp did you end up choosing?
- Lyngbakr 2y agoI'm still looking around, but Owl is a frontrunner.
- cess11 2y agoIf the bigger runtime isn't a deal breaker, maybe look at Racket.
- behnamoh 2y agoRacket has great documentation but unfortunately even its creatures have moved in to Rhombus which is a non lisp.
- cess11 2y agoNot so sure anyone is using Rhombus besides the few people working on it.
- soegaard 2y agoThat'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 https://github.com/racket/rhombus/discussions/521
- soegaard 2y agoHave 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.