2010/1/27, Ted Unangst <[email protected]>: > > Let me expand on this point a little more, and ignore the demo for now. > > mg has slowly grown a number of C implemented extensions, but that's > not a scalable future. I think a real extension language is needed to > *prevent* bloat. That's my justification for the feature. Picking > the language used is a process of elimination. We have a couple > choices, but if we're going to keep it light weight, we shouldn't burn > 2k lines on a parser. So our choices are basically lisp or forth. I > assert without proof that forth is the wrong choice. >
I know you've already done a lot of work on tinyscheme, but have you considered Lua ? Very efficient and low memory footprint, and also more accessible for people who don't want to dwelve in the deeps of functional programming. It's being used alot in embedded development and as an extension language. Please don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of scheme. Anyways having tinyscheme sounds very nice.
