[agentkilo]

> I think it's inspired by Clojure and Lua, and somehow manages to be better than both

This is exactly how I feel about Janet too. I don't think I have enough experience on Clojure or Lua to comment on them, but I got attracted to Janet almost immediately.

Working on Jwno also confirms my first impression on Janet: It's really a practical language. The tooling has some room for improvement, but the language itself can get things done - usually fast and easily.

[cfiggers]

Agreed on the need for better Janet tooling. I'm trying to be the change I wish to see with Janet LSP[0]. Issues and contributions are welcome!

[0] https://GitHub.com/CFiggers/janet-lsp

[sph]

How’s the REPL/interactive editing story? I feel weird using a Lisp that is not as interactive as Racket, Scheme or Common Lisp. Running scripts from the REPL ain’t the same thing as C-x C-e an expression on a live program

[behnamoh]

> I feel weird using a Lisp that is not as interactive as Racket, Scheme or Common Lisp

I think Racket and Scheme don't belong in there because neither has a REPL as powerful and "interactive" as Common Lisp REPL. They don't support images either (but Janet and CL do).

[tmtvl]

As a Common Lisper with a Scheme background I'm gonna guess that by the interactivity of the REPL you mean the condition system with restarts? While most Schemes don't really have anything like it, I seem to recall MIT/GNU Scheme having something kinda similar. And I mean, hey, it's got Edwin, so it definitely has interactivity.

[behnamoh]

Yes, I mean the conditions and restarts system in CL. Haven't seen anything like that in Clojure and other Lisps.

[TeMPOraL]

Yeah, it's mind-blowing when it clicks, and makes the whole "exceptions vs. return types" discussion look like a quarrel of 3yos in a sand box. Error handling in other languages/runtimes just doesn't feel sufficient from now on.

This is, of course, just a part of a larger whole - the fact that your Common Lisp program ships with a compiler it can access and effectively always runs in an edit-and-go debugger. Embracing this fact fully leads to a different workflow of software development.

Having done a bit of that, I found plenty of drawbacks of this approach, too - mostly various consequences of breaking the assumption that code that a program is running is the same as the code it was compiled from or that it started with. The aspect that annoyed me the most day-to-day was, basically, that whenever I fixed something on the fly through conditions and restarts and eval-ing code in a REPL, I never had a nice way to go back to that solution and port it to code. It was too easy to forget about a quick fix you did without thinking.

I now realized this should be easily fixable with external tooling - i.e. in Emacs/SLIME. What I think they need is a better way of keeping an audit trail. Capturing and persisting as much of the transient interactions you did as possible, letting you revisit them after and easily transfer into code or tests.

[behnamoh]

> I now realized this should be easily fixable with external tooling - i.e. in Emacs/SLIME. What I think they need is a better way of keeping an audit trail. Capturing and persisting as much of the transient interactions you did as possible, letting you revisit them after and easily transfer into code or tests.

To some extent, undotree on neovim allows this because it offers a drastically different view on what "undo" means. But I agree with you, the lack of a git-like system is annoying. I even think this might be THE reason CL didn't catch on—companies want to keep track of things (hence all the dashboards and ticketing systems...).

[sph]

> Yeah, it's mind-blowing when it clicks, and makes the whole "exceptions vs. return types" discussion look like a quarrel of 3yos in a sand box. Error handling in other languages/runtimes just doesn't feel sufficient from now on.

I am still waiting for a non-Lisp language with a half-decent restart system. Even compiled languages should be able to implement it (except dealing with a possible allocation failure when saving the register context to return to)

[TeMPOraL]

There's multiple dimensions you can slice and dice the Lisp family by. Images and REPL experience are two big ones, but they're almost orthogonal.

[behnamoh]

I didn't mean that Racket and Scheme aren't Lisp (they are!). I meant they don't have the images and REPL-driven development of Common Lisp.

[jwmcq]

If we're still calling Guile a Scheme (I'm out of the loop) then I don't know, it gets really bloody close. Not so much in image-based development (that I've usually found less good than a decent packaging system because the contents of my files on disk is usually more tractable than the contents of my image), but its object system and error handling are definitely up there close to CL.

I mean, Common Lisp is still the gold-standard for me, but reading about Hoot recently really made me want to check Guile out a bit more (CL does not have much in the way of lovely WASM stories right now) and, honestly, I was super impressed. I think if the interactive experience of developing in Hoot in the browser matched the interactive experience of developing in native Guile, I'd be a pretty happy convert.

[sph]

Guile is certainly my favourite Scheme for standalone use.

[pbohun]

This is how I feel about Janet too, absolutely practical. So far it's been a breeze to write the little experiments I've done so far.