Hi Rick, Christophe, I was thinking the same thing. miniPicolisp might be a simpler first step to port
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Rick Lyman <[email protected]> wrote: > Christophe, > > How about porting the c version using: > https://github.com/kripken/emscripten? > > -rl > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Christophe Gragnic < > [email protected]> 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 >> http://asmjs.org/file(s). >> >> 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 > > >
