I wonder if there are any Scheme implementations for FreeDOS. I don't want to be stuck with assembly language, C, and BASIC. Are there any DOS users here who program using Scheme in DOS?
basic is enough, basically
If it doesn't exist, it should be easy enough to implement your own Scheme.
easy enough to implement your own Scheme
R7RS-small in Intel 8088 assembly? Have you ever done something similar? (e.g. R5RS in Intel 8088 assembly)
>>1
>>4
You don't have to use asm! You could use BASIC, C, Free Pascal, FORTRAN, Perl or Lua instead. To get Free Pacal, Lua, etc. you need to use the FDIMPLES/FDNPKG package manager. I the bonus CD also contains some software packages, too (if you don't want to use networking).
http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3/Packages
R5RS in Intel 8088 assembly
Just as POC I'm going to go and do it.
Just kidding no I'm not, go do your own homework.
I found this for you:
https://owainkenwayucl.github.io/2017/08/06/UsefulToolsFreeDOS.html
I recommend reading Fravia's search lores to learn how to search the Internet. :-)
>>4
Why are you targeting for the Intel 8088 with DOS? What's wrong with the Intel 386?
Intel 80386
Massive bloat. The large scary number in its name is emblematic of this.
Intel 8088 is able to run DOS with 10 times less transistors.
>>9
So you're a just a troll. You've surely trolled me with skill.
>>10
On a more serious note, why not Intel 8088? It is certainly a simpler processor than the 80386, both from an electronics perspective and from an assembly programming perspective.
>>11
Show me that it is possible to write a Scheme compiler that targets DOS and Intel 8088. A working demonstration on a QEMU based emulator is the most convincing evidence that I would accept short of a real world implementation on real world hardware. I am very sceptical about the practicality of writing, compiling then executing real world Scheme based programs within the one megabyte address space of the Intel 8088.
show me
If you want to be convinced, or otherwise, do it yourself. That's why you have a computer, that's the whole point of stuff like math and programming, you are supposed to figure it out yourself. Else you're not a hacker, but a hack, who relies on others to make all of their software for them, who contribute nothing to this world.
Scm claims to work on DOS
>>13
I have a strong suspicion that it isn't feasible to achieve a reasonably featured Scheme compiler that targets the Intel 8088 and DOS. For some reason, somebody here has the bright idea of probing us for an existing Scheme compiler that will specifically do this.
fuck dos
i just wanted a scheme implementation with good win32api shit
I have a strong suspicion that it isn't feasible to achieve a reasonably featured Scheme compiler that targets the Intel 8088 and DOS.
Why? Isn't Scheme a "minimalist programming language" that is devoid of bloat? Is Scheme really so bloated?
17
The features of Scheme require memory space to work. I'm making a big assumption here because I haven't compiled any performance profile data, but I'm imagining that it's easy for typical Scheme real-world programs to exceed one megabyte of working memory.
> 18
you might find this interesting: https://github.com/udem-dlteam/ribbit
the ribbit vm+repl has a 4-10kb footprint, it's bytecode is probably compact enough to give you some nice breathing room to do some pretty cool things in under 1mb.