I hear you on prior art. But for who does your heart break? What is here that you'd like to discourage? Those interested in getting down and dirty are highly u

I hear you on prior art. But for who does your heart break? What is here that you'd like to discourage? Those interested in getting down and dirty are highly unlikely to suspend that impulse for MIT's old intro text and a dissertation from 1987. The author apparently rewrote this three times; so says README. Nothing lofty or pristine, precious as it may be, slots in for that experience. A state of the art impl it isn't, but we all know where to find those. But I suspect the state of the author's art has improved markedly by the exercise. Maybe if we encourage him, he'll rewrite a few more times, and come up with something wonderful and strange. Maybe it will be a Scheme. Maybe it won't.