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

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.
-- 
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu