Sorry to tramp over your thread! Mu isn't too related to SectorLISP, I was just responding to the side-discussion about what we can build in under 1MB.
To answer your question, evaluate.mu does support lambda (I call it `fn`). My estimates of size were based on `ls -l a.bin` after `./translate shell/*.mu`.
It that case it'd be really cool if you implemented John McCarthy's metacircular evaluator in Mu LISP syntax to demonstrate it's a LISP. Sort of like how when John McCarthy shared the idea for LISP one of the first things he had to do was show that it's able to do the same things as a Turing machine.
(I haven't done this so far because I find metacircularity to not be very interesting. It was interesting when JMC proved it could be done. Mu's whole reason for existence is linear rather than circular bootstrapping. We can disagree over whether I get to call it a Lisp or not, but if it has the full power of macros I'm happy.)
And Justine, if you want to join our ever continuing argument about bootstrapping processes and trust in programming language toolchains, Kartik is the right person to talk to :p
To answer your question, evaluate.mu does support lambda (I call it `fn`). My estimates of size were based on `ls -l a.bin` after `./translate shell/*.mu`.
I actually didn't really think of the micro interpretation of 'mu' until years after I started the project. The interpretation I had in mind was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)#%22Unasking%22_t...