I wasn't looking for something fast, as I'm happy to write some code in C anyway for something performance-sensitive, and most of the stuff I was going to write in Janet would be for interactive use. I was more interested in having a simple VM and a language that wasn't piling on new features every release like mainstream blub languages.
I also wanted a language that gave a straightforward mental model without an opinionated philosophy that tried to protect me from mutability and other real-world things (hence I didn't really want to go with Haskell and ~purely functional languages).
FWIW I also think the syntax errors in Janet are somewhat hard to grok.
> So I feel like my time is better invested learning Racket instead?
I think it depends. If you want a language you can always rely on for 99% of use cases, something that covers many bases makes sense. For me, I wanted more of a fill-in-the-gaps language where neither C nor /bin/sh scripting make sense (e.g. stuff I may run on Windows or something heavy in string-handling).
I also wanted a language that gave a straightforward mental model without an opinionated philosophy that tried to protect me from mutability and other real-world things (hence I didn't really want to go with Haskell and ~purely functional languages).
FWIW I also think the syntax errors in Janet are somewhat hard to grok.
I think it depends. If you want a language you can always rely on for 99% of use cases, something that covers many bases makes sense. For me, I wanted more of a fill-in-the-gaps language where neither C nor /bin/sh scripting make sense (e.g. stuff I may run on Windows or something heavy in string-handling).