How about porting the c version using:


On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Christophe Gragnic <> wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm currently embedding a «pedagogical pseudo-code like language» in
> PicoLisp.
> As using plain browsers is a nice thing to have in front of students,
> I tried with
> EmuLisp (PicoLisp in JS, by Jon Kleiser, that I won't thank enough, with
> Alex),
> which proved to be a good solution for me.
> So I had some thoughts, ideas and questions.
> 1) EmuLisp lacks some functions. The first idea I had was to write them in
> the
> available functions (like 'glue' with 'pack'). It worked for some, but
> some others
> needed to be implemented in JS. Now my question: how far could be pushed
> the
> idea to write a maximal subset of Picolisp in a minimal subset of
> Picolisp? Like in
> the original paper of McCarthy or «the Jewel» in SICP? I'm not talking
> about
> performance here, just functions availability.
> 2) Since PicoLisp64 is written in a «generic assembly» embedded in
> PicoLisp,
> I was wondering (only wondering, since the concepts are a bit vague for
> me) if
> instead of building the .s files we could build some
> 3) Regarding EmuLisp again, and for your information, I've created
> (and am using seriously!) a JS pil, that I named `piljs` which runs on node

Reply via email to