HN

Comments (18)

• jasomill
  Interesting.The simplicity of the build process is inspiring.It literally took me less than five minutes to cobble together a build environment from thin air, cross-compile, and test:1. Glance at the Makefile, notice that it's a single self-contained C file and that it builds on Open Watcom.2. Google Open Watcom, download the latest Linux binary release from GitHub on my Windows PC because that's where I'm sitting but my plan is to run it on the Linux box across the room, currently headless.2. Out of habit, I run "file" and "7z l" on what's apparently a self-extracting installer when it finishes downloading.3. Realize it contains binaries for multiple platforms, including Windows, so I extract it.4. Following the Makefile, set a WATCOM environment variable pointing to the extracted path and add its "binnt64" directory to my path.5. Copy/paste the single compilation command from the Makefile into PowerShell. Cross-compiles without error.7. Create an ISO image of the source directory containing the binary, mount it on the nearest DOS-alike (an 86Box instance running MS-DOS 6.22 on an emulated Pentium MMX IBM PC), ran the included test program. Tests pass.
• Menu

  bitwize
  Fantastic to see the DOS Lisp scene revived again. Back in the day there was PC-Scheme from Texas Instruments, which I believe was R3RS-compliant.
• dharmatech
  Super cool to see a new Scheme on DOS.I've been messing around with a language that I summarize as:ALOE = Scheme + Smalltalk + TypesBoids implementation:https://github.com/dharmatech/2026-09-02-aloe-racket/blob/ma...https://github.com/dharmatech/2026-09-02-aloe-racket
• Menu

  pmcgoron
  Aw, no call-with-current-continuation?
• Menu

  reddit_clone
  DOS? Like in MSDOS?There is something I haven't heard in a long while. Turbo C was the shit back in the day. Until MS came in and pushed Borland out of the way.
• anyfoo
  > The SLED system does not feature numeric types. Yet natural numbers (non-negative integers) can be emulated using lists:> '(nil nil nil) ; threePfsh, how pedestrian and unnecessarily high level. What you of course want to use instead is ♫ Church Numerals ♫! (define zero (lambda (f) (lambda (x) x))) (define (succ n) (lambda (f) (lambda (x) (f ((n f) x))))) (define one (succ zero)) (define two (succ one)) (define (add m n) (lambda (f) (lambda (x) ((m f) ((n f) x))))) (define (mul m n) (lambda (f) (n (m f)))) (define (pow m n) (n m)) ; n applications of "multiply by m" ;; escape hatch back to the host numbers (define (church->int n) ((n (lambda (x) (+ x 1))) 0)) (The "escape hatch" at the end is in Scheme, and only shown for illustration. Converting it into SLED and its documented "list numbers" is left as an exercise for the reader. It's really trivial, try it.)
• tug2024
  [dead]