Hacker News Reader

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 Then again, if it doesn't have runtime eval, is it really a lisp?

View on HN

Good 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.

Scheme 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).

To the contrary, idiomatic Scheme also uses a lot of stateful data.

Nope; it's absolutely clear right on the front page that it's a subset of Scheme.

What 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com