3 ms·
If you build a compiler without runtime eval, you can use all the AVR's memory for user data. Still tiny, but not as cramped as this interpreter: http://microsc
by technomancy 10y ago
If you build a compiler without runtime eval, you can use all the AVR's memory for user data. Still tiny, but not as cramped as this interpreter: http://microscheme.org http://microscheme.org Then again, if it doesn't have runtime eval, is it really a lisp?
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoGood question. It's hard to say. As for microscheme, it looks cool. Although I am annoyed, because it implicitly claims to be Scheme (it's not), and it explicitly claims to be functional (scheme most definitely isn't). But those are just nitpicks.
- pherq 10y agoScheme fits the common definition of a functional language, even if it's not pure in the same way as Haskell. Especially since idiomatic Scheme uses pure functions and recursion (as opposed to idiomatic CL which is a lot more imperative).
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoTo the contrary, idiomatic Scheme also uses a lot of stateful data.
- technomancy 10y agoNope; it's absolutely clear right on the front page that it's a subset of Scheme.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoWhat I meant was the name, although it's up for debate. The micro- would imply a subset, so it's much better than the many languages that call themselves Scheme, and really, really aren't.