undefined | Better HN

0 pointsianthehenry3y ago0 comments

Depending on what you're doing, Janet might be a great fit! I wrote a DSL for [expressing and shading 3D shapes](https://bauble.studio), and it was pretty easy. Depending on exactly what you're trying to do, the ease of embedding the Janet interpreter inside of other programs might be a big point in its favor.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

behnamoh3y ago· 2 in thread

Enjoyed reading the post! I think the difference between Racket and Janet DSLs is that with Racket, you can avoid using s-exp altogether.

https://beautifulracket.com/stacker/intro.html

ianthehenryOP3y ago

This is actually true of Janet as well, although it is not as nicely supported as it is in Racket. You can "bring your own parser," but still leverage the Janet bytecode compiler and runtime. Sort of... an advanced topic, though. The Racket path is much better trodden :)

behnamoh3y ago

Wow good to know! I wish there was an easy way to do it in Janet. It’s a much simpler language compared to Racket. And since it started as someone’s hobby project, I think unlike Racket, it isn’t under much pressure from academia. Academic languages tend to be less suitable for production (Haskell, Racket, Julia, etc.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse