[schemescape]

Has anyone here switched from Common Lisp or Scheme/Racket to Janet? If so, what was good/bad about the switch? Or was it just different?

I recently started learning Common Lisp, and it’s been mostly great, but my two complaints are 1) memory usage and 2) deployment (copy source or distribute a relatively huge world image—and I haven’t found any way to get a fully static build without patches, even with ECL).

Janet could solve both of those, although I’d pay a performance penalty due to it being interpreted, and I assume there are a lot fewer libraries/tools. I really like the idea of a Lua-sized Lisp, but I’m not sure if I should jump ship from a traditional Lisp yet.

[baq]

I’ve never done basically any lisp except a toy project but this

> distribute a relatively huge world image

in my understanding of the lisp world is actually a feature…?

[schemescape]

You’re right, it is a feature, but I’d like the option to distribute a smaller binary without everything built in. Roswell supposedly helps with this, but I haven’t gotten it to work yet. Some commercial implementations support this, I think, but they’re priced well beyond my hobby project budget.

Janet is intriguing to me because it has a small footprint (even smaller than most Schemes). I’ve heard it’s handy for building little utilities, especially if you want someone else to be able to run them (a situation I find myself in regularly).

[ianthehenry]

To provide a some extra context for other readers and mostly respond to the GP:

Janet does not do any stripping for distribution -- Janet images compiled to native executables still contain the full compiler/stdlib/runtime/everything in <1mb.

[nine_k]

Janet is planned and built as an embeddable language; CL is not.

[schemescape]

Absolutely, but it’s not even embedding that I had in mind. I want to be able to produce fully statically linked binaries, because in my experience that is the only truly portable binary solution on Linux. It’s a trade off for sure, but it’s something I’ve found useful for running on e.g. Raspberry Pi.

For SBCL, the two main approaches I’ve seen are: a) use a patched version of SBCL that is statically linked or b) build against an old glibc and hope for the best (which sadly doesn’t work on my musl libc-based distribution). I guess the third approach is distribute source and compile on the device—this is what I’m actually doing, but it seems a little silly to recompile every time, even if it’s the same architecture.

And keep in mind this is just my wishlist of functionality. It’s not necessary and I don’t expect it, but it would be really convenient.

[bo-tato]

easiest solution I found was building SBCL targetting an old glibc using zig as the c compiler:

CC="zig cc -target x86_64-linux-gnu.2.28" LD="zig cc -target x86_64-linux-gnu.2.28"

zig bundles in all the glibc headers, so I think it should build on musl libc-based distro

for more complicated programs with native dependencies there is (https://github.com/Shinmera/deploy) or guix has a lot of CL libraries already and it's fairly easy to write packages for others, you can specify all dependencies with guix and use guix pack to get a .tar with all dependencies you can unpack and run on any other linux box

[schemescape]

I was wondering if compiling via Zig would work. Also, thanks for the Guix tip—I will give that a try!

I think native dependencies would require something like this (which I believe uses Deploy to solve part of the problem): https://www.timmons.dev/posts/static-executables-with-sbcl.h...