The minmal syntax engines

I lok at source on these, lisp.c is a great example  About 500 lines of code, but they limit the use of separators and odd punctuation so they have  minimal tokenizer. The basic  c interpreters were generally  a thousand lines, but supported flexible layout, had better tokenizers.  All defined the Turing complete package, they can all be nested within a default expression, for example.

The lisp and forth implementations make great byte code engines on the bus. Much of the enterprise processing of data consists of stacking and unstacking the stuff,waiting for dependencies or ordering by precedence.  Or masp a lisp list to args is, just flood rgs with a chain of lisp executives, even add better tokenizing to the language so users can lay i out, even substitute brackets for parenth?, I dunno. But on the Bus, lisp is a tool, used by other tools.

So we can see hardly, my new invention which is hardly a syntax at all, it is a buch of API entry points to bunches of high speed stacks with push, pop,pull,lift,shunt; and a bunch of whatever functions one can do with groups of stacks. Use them fr gaming, bring up the qt_gamer_lite loadable, stack you creatures in stacks, make reconfigurable gaming environment.

Snippets,everywhere I look great snippets; the lisp.c was a great find, a bit of an eye opener. We should  get a good bash execution unit for under a thousand lines.  If they work on args list, they ll nest, automatically, or console loop burps on a violation.