3 ms·
I've been drawn into the Janet posts that surface every once in a while here on HN, but found the otherwise highly praised "Janet for Mortals", not being for mo
by wodenokoto 5mo ago
I've been drawn into the Janet posts that surface every once in a while here on HN, but found the otherwise highly praised "Janet for Mortals", not being for mortals at all.
- shevy-java 5mo ago> not being for mortals at all. I had that with Haskell. Although, while Haskell is too hard for me, I actually like its syntax. Janet seems to be Lisp 2.0, so the syntax is lispy.
- lelanthran 5mo ago> I've been drawn into the Janet posts that surface every once in a while here on HN, but found the otherwise highly praised "Janet for Mortals", not being for mortals at all. I'm surprised: the language is very straightfoward, simple, very few rules to remember. It's a Lisp but with a very small surface area. I mean, compared to other languages, Janet really is easier to lean, so I'm surprised that the book for it is difficult (did not read the book, but familiar-ish with the language. I don't have anything but praise for it, TBH).
- petee 5mo agoPersonally I get hung up on the macro syntax being near the beginning, but there is so much valuable stuff past that
- veqq 5mo agoI have some gentler introductory stuff like: https://janetdocs.org/tutorials https://janetdocs.org/tutorials