[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).

[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.