corrosion VS macro-lisp

With reference to the section on how difficult it is to build wpgu-native and how you basically have to use a precompiled binary, there appears to be an easier way to integrate a Cargo library into a CMake project: https://github.com/corrosion-rs/corrosion

Already taken as a name https://github.com/corrosion-rs/corrosion

Corrosion can help with option 1, cmake with option 2. You are on your own with option 3, so I would stay away from that.

Or you can just use one of the many solutions others have already come up with, like this cmake project I found with a minute of googling: https://github.com/corrosion-rs/corrosion

Tools that seems reasonable to help this integration is Corrosion and Cxx.

Rust’s macro system is safe and hygienic, people have implemented lisps in it. I just did a google search to find an example, so I have no idea how well supported this is, https://github.com/JunSuzukiJapan/macro-lisp

You can already have both: https://github.com/JunSuzukiJapan/macro-lisp

Via a lisp macro?

Rust macros can make the language look like anything, even lisp: https://github.com/JunSuzukiJapan/macro-lisp

Why not get the best (?) of both worlds with the macro-lisp crate: https://github.com/JunSuzukiJapan/macro-lisp

A small snippet from the project's examples shows minimal boilerplate between Rust and a native-looking Lisp experience:

After that, I'm going to go back to working on adding some scripting. My attempts at making a Lisp in Rust failed spectacularly, but when trying to find a ready made replacement that's not too big (so not RustPython and not Rhai or Dyon) I found mentions of DSL, which are usually Rust macros, which led me to https://github.com/JunSuzukiJapan/macro-lisp (single file, circa 400 lines, that does basically the whole job I want, i.e. being able to call Rust functions when I need them, e.g. from an in-game console)