Re: [racket-users] Re: Boot To Racket

Hey, just to add another idea: > > Don't be scared away from coding your own Scheme from scratch. A whole > lot of them got started that way, because it's easy to code your own (If > you borrow existing approaches for garbage collection and evaluation > with tail calls), then do something

Re: [racket-users] Re: Boot To Racket

My comments were about adapting off-the-shelf solutions. If you want to do it from scratch, for educational/hack value, or because you want to do something better in some way, then Just Do It. Suggestions, based only on a general familiarity... There are introductory textbooks on operating

Re: [racket-users] Re: Boot To Racket

I've been following this discussion with keen interest. Although my Liitin.org project is far from minimal in size (viable sized by design), it does have some common objectives. Racket is used as "the native language" that is meant to be able to control all areas of the cloud-based, native

[racket-users] Re: Boot To Racket

My general idea for this system is to write a small kernel that would boot and start a REPL, but now that I'm thinking about it I'd need to do some finagling to get Racket itself working on this new system --- not to mention learning ARM ASM if I'm going to implement this on a Raspberry Pi. By

Re: [racket-users] Re: Boot To Racket

I've had a wish recently to try and turn Heresy into something like this, with an RPi booting straight to a Heresy shell+editor interface akin to old 8-bit computers, complete with some kind of custom framebuffer 80-column display (as I have an RPi1 and Xorg is hella slow). It could all still be

[racket-users] Re: Boot To Racket

William G Hatch writes: > I would love to see a Racket unikernel [...] But I recall some talk about > MirageOS (I think) where they said something about it taking something like 2 > years to rewrite the IP/TCP stack in OCaml. I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to get Racket