← Back to context Comment by fnord123 2 months ago Which scheme implementation? Guile? 11 comments fnord123 Reply NuclearPM 2 months ago All of them. lgas 2 months ago To elaborate, the scheme spec requires tco. fnord123 2 months ago Which scheme is embeddable and lightweight?And what does lightweight mean? Does it mean low memory footprint or does it mean few-lines-of-code-to-introduce or does it mean zero-dependencies? 1 reply → fnord123 2 months ago I meant which scheme implementation is "lightweight" and also meant to ask what "lightweight means". feb 2 months ago For a functionnal language, TCO is really a must have. How would you do the equivalent of loops without it ? yencabulator 2 months ago For a purely functional language. Scheme is not that.https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/while-do... anthk 2 months ago And you are wrong because you can define a loop as iterating recursively over a list with just car and cdr. 1 reply → fnord123 2 months ago I wasn't asking which scheme has TCO.I was asking which scheme if the 20-50 of them was "lightweight" and embeddable.
NuclearPM 2 months ago All of them. lgas 2 months ago To elaborate, the scheme spec requires tco. fnord123 2 months ago Which scheme is embeddable and lightweight?And what does lightweight mean? Does it mean low memory footprint or does it mean few-lines-of-code-to-introduce or does it mean zero-dependencies? 1 reply → fnord123 2 months ago I meant which scheme implementation is "lightweight" and also meant to ask what "lightweight means".
lgas 2 months ago To elaborate, the scheme spec requires tco. fnord123 2 months ago Which scheme is embeddable and lightweight?And what does lightweight mean? Does it mean low memory footprint or does it mean few-lines-of-code-to-introduce or does it mean zero-dependencies? 1 reply →
fnord123 2 months ago Which scheme is embeddable and lightweight?And what does lightweight mean? Does it mean low memory footprint or does it mean few-lines-of-code-to-introduce or does it mean zero-dependencies? 1 reply →
fnord123 2 months ago I meant which scheme implementation is "lightweight" and also meant to ask what "lightweight means".
feb 2 months ago For a functionnal language, TCO is really a must have. How would you do the equivalent of loops without it ? yencabulator 2 months ago For a purely functional language. Scheme is not that.https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/while-do... anthk 2 months ago And you are wrong because you can define a loop as iterating recursively over a list with just car and cdr. 1 reply → fnord123 2 months ago I wasn't asking which scheme has TCO.I was asking which scheme if the 20-50 of them was "lightweight" and embeddable.
yencabulator 2 months ago For a purely functional language. Scheme is not that.https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/while-do... anthk 2 months ago And you are wrong because you can define a loop as iterating recursively over a list with just car and cdr. 1 reply →
anthk 2 months ago And you are wrong because you can define a loop as iterating recursively over a list with just car and cdr. 1 reply →
fnord123 2 months ago I wasn't asking which scheme has TCO.I was asking which scheme if the 20-50 of them was "lightweight" and embeddable.
All of them.
To elaborate, the scheme spec requires tco.
Which scheme is embeddable and lightweight?
And what does lightweight mean? Does it mean low memory footprint or does it mean few-lines-of-code-to-introduce or does it mean zero-dependencies?
1 reply →
I meant which scheme implementation is "lightweight" and also meant to ask what "lightweight means".
For a functionnal language, TCO is really a must have. How would you do the equivalent of loops without it ?
For a purely functional language. Scheme is not that.
https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/while-do...
And you are wrong because you can define a loop as iterating recursively over a list with just car and cdr.
1 reply →
I wasn't asking which scheme has TCO.
I was asking which scheme if the 20-50 of them was "lightweight" and embeddable.