Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!ira.uka.de!fauern!tub!net
From: net@tub.UUCP (Oliver Laumann)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: what makes scheme?
Message-ID: <1459@tub.UUCP>
Date: 10 Aug 90 10:50:32 GMT
References: <9008031618.AA02461@mailhost.samsung.com> <1990Aug5.175401@sprawl.yorku.ca> <RICH.90Aug7015042@uncle-bens.Rice.edu> <5752@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> <J:25_41@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: net@tub.UUCP (Oliver Laumann)
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Lines: 17

In article <J:25_41@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> 
> (still looking for a reasonably small, portable, and fast extension language)

I'm wondering what exactly you mean by "reasonably small" in this context.
Less than 64 KBytes?  Less than 1 MByte?  Smaller than MIT-Scheme :-)?

I'm asking because I have read this Scheme-implementations-must-be-small
and XYZ-Scheme-is-too-large argument over and over again.

Please define a predicate is-small(X) that we can apply to the existing
implementations to be able to determine whether they can be considered
"small".

Thanks,
--
Oliver Laumann     net@TUB.BITNET     net@tub.cs.tu-berlin.de     net@tub.UUCP