We live in a world were ever PC has at least 2 Gbyte of ram and most CPU's are 64 bits, the section 'Data Representation' begins to explain how 'everything' can be stored in a single 32-bit integer, if we limit integers to 30 bits. What the hack?
Besides, if you're looking for a high-performance Scheme that fully utilizes all available system resources, there are definitely better options available. :)
As you probably want to combine these valuse together into some structures representing the various language constructs, an additional byte to represent the type of the structure, and thus the type of its elements, would also be needed. Than you could do away with the extra bits representing the type.
I just think this is premature optimization and making things unneccessary complex especially for your readers who might want to learn something from it.
As I said further down this thread though, it's a 'speed' thing, not memory storage thing, the common belief is that boxing is slow, because it was slow in java, but in reality boxing is a) a mostly acceptable trade-off that only loses out in extreme cache-limited situations, and b) something that could be optimised away anyway.
I agree that a lot of boxing can be optimized away, but often it also can't.
He was referencing the limitations of copper POTS, of course. But I still found it funny (if I recall correctly, it was printed side-by-side with his debunking of the 'you only need so much ram' quote).
Higher speeds werent possible until moving to digital lines (64k for IDSN, single line, 128k for dual). DSL upped the anty, pushing to 1-3 Mbps in my area. Cable really pushed it when I could get 15 Mbps vs best available DSL in my area at around 3 Mbps.
Today, I have around 200 Mbps over cable (gigabit is available), best DSL in the area is still around 25 Mbps. Fiber is not available yet, but AT&T is running fiber, but 2 years in, still not an option and they haven't published pricing/speeds for the area.