[Ignoring the dupes since they got no attention. Good reason to resubmit if material is worthwhile.]
The author seems to be doing a good thing. Like he said, most of the write-ups on this subject are either ultra-heavy with theory or basically nothing with code examples. Doing interpreters piece-by-piece like in SICP or The Little Schemer series in an accessible language gradually giving them the code and theory they need is a good idea.
It could also help in my verifiable builds scheme where people show no subversion exist by building from ASM to small language (or interpreter) then to bigger one then whole compiler. I was debating p-code, Oberon, Scheme, MiniML... Biggest problem is that the best stuff, eg Scheme's or ML's, is least likely for imperative programmers to try to understand. Something like this could help if I use an imperative base.
At the time I pointed out that this is a dupe the previous submission had been less than an hour earlier, scarcely giving it enough time to get any attention.
But screw that, let's just submit things every 10 minutes until they get upvotes.
Personal story only, I never liked Imp, nor OO that much (all my OO code tried to be lisp or caml without knowing it). I learned lisp eval, then lc, typed lc.. recently prolog; where the machine vanishes quite a lot. Yet the very high abstraction view that path led to makes the understanding of systems and languages very coherent even if thinking in an imperative POV. But I can't suggest doing that to anybody since it may fail miserably for them.
It stays low-level and builds the components of a Scheme at same time. Piece by piece with ability to understand and verify. The resulting language could be used to build better LISP's, ML's, Prolog's, etc. sklogic's DSL toolkit illustrates that nicely where he mix and matches on top of a foundation of a LISP custom-designed for it.
Taking it further, you might like FLEX and Ten15 VM that unified higher-level languages:
The author seems to be doing a good thing. Like he said, most of the write-ups on this subject are either ultra-heavy with theory or basically nothing with code examples. Doing interpreters piece-by-piece like in SICP or The Little Schemer series in an accessible language gradually giving them the code and theory they need is a good idea.
It could also help in my verifiable builds scheme where people show no subversion exist by building from ASM to small language (or interpreter) then to bigger one then whole compiler. I was debating p-code, Oberon, Scheme, MiniML... Biggest problem is that the best stuff, eg Scheme's or ML's, is least likely for imperative programmers to try to understand. Something like this could help if I use an imperative base.