[etaoins]

The way I’ve approached it in my compiler [1] is that garbage collection can never occur while Lisp/RFI (Rust function interface) code is executing. Once the program returns to the event loop GC can occur with a small number of known roots. This works because there will be no way to block without waiting on a future which can then return to the event loop. I’m considering adding a `conditional-gc` macro for long running computations that’s internally implemented as waiting on a future that’s immediately resolved.

This means that RFI code can treat GCed values as having a `'static` lifetime. One caveat is that RFI code cannot capture values except for a few special runtime functions. This works naturally with the language’s pure functional design, however.

As far as data structures go its impossible to support performant Lisp code by implementing lists as native vectors; the guarantees and idioms are too different. My runtime [2] provides Rust bindings for data types that e.g. allow you to create an `Iterator` from a list or construct a list from one. That should allow transparent interoperability with idiomatic Rust patterns and data structures.

[1] https://arret-lang.org/

[2] https://rustdoc.arret-lang.org/arret_runtime/index.html