[plt-scheme] Suitability of typed scheme for replacement of c language for microcontrollers

From: Seth Burleigh (seth at tewebs.com)
Date: Sun Feb 21 20:03:57 EST 2010

On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 19:49 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Seth Burleigh <seth at tewebs.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 22:12 -0500, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> >>  I wasn't thinking that
> >> static typing is necessary, and I don't need "call/cc" directly, but I
> >> am concerned about GC (its resource demands, and doing it with real-time
> >> constraints).
> > There actually already exists scheme for PIC microcontrollers.
> > http://repo.or.cz/w/picobit.git
> >
> > The reason i was considering a typed scheme is that i have to program in
> > c anyways and a typed scheme wouldn't make much a difference except that
> > it could do macros - a big advantage - and it would have the same
> > potential for speed as c does.
> It would be a mistake to think that Typed Scheme has a natural mapping
> onto either C or a microcontroller, or that it would make your code as
> fast as C.  Typed Scheme is designed for Scheme programs and Scheme
> idioms, not C.
> If what you want is C with Scheme macros, I would write an sexp-based
> C language using PLT, and use that to generate C code.

I agree after looking more closely at typed scheme. I played around with
how i would write a c based sexp language for avr microcontrollers and i
came up with some sketches mapping c code to a sexp language and adding
doesn't seem to clutter the code if some simple (well maybe not simple)
type inference is done.  Especially if inlined c is allowed

Of course there will be no continuations or such. However, I have
noticed that in avr-gcc it is possible to allow anonymous functions and
an extremely limited form of closures for the functions via nested

Thanks for all the input!

Posted on the users mailing list.