Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: what makes scheme?
Message-ID: <3554@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 13 Aug 90 07:18:05 GMT
References: <9008031618.AA02461@mailhost.samsung.com> <1459@tub.UUCP>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 29

> 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".

For an extension language, may I propose
	"size(1)" of code for the extension language kernel as a library
	that can be linked with the program that uses it is
	<  50k on a VAX
	< 100k on a MIPS
as the definition of
	small-scheme-like-extension-kit?

I have an emacs-like editor which I'd like to add an extension language
to.  I would rather the extension language were smaller than the editor.

For something which is not intended as an extension language but as a
reasonable Scheme programming environment, I suggest
	< 1 M of code on a VAX
	< 2 M of code on a MIPS
as the definition of
	small-scheme-implementation?
or alternatively
	runs in < 4M of VM on a VAX
	runs in < 5M of VM on a MIPS

Something like a stripped down T3.1 would be just about right.

-- 
The taxonomy of Pleistocene equids is in a state of confusion.