I felt the same way about Norvigs version which was one reason to do this. I feel like the recursive lisp interpreter-on-an-interpreter thing is not as clear wh

I felt the same way about Norvigs version which was one reason to do this. I feel like the recursive lisp interpreter-on-an-interpreter thing is not as clear when so much of the host language is relied on. Oh, and I hear you about integers as strings. This choice was in part for compactness and in part inspired by the first LISP papers where there are only symbols and no other types.