As for microscheme, it looks cool. Although I am annoyed, because it implicitly claims to be Scheme (it's not), and it explicitly claims to be functional (scheme most definitely isn't). But those are just nitpicks.
Scheme fits the common definition of a functional language, even if it's not pure in the same way as Haskell. Especially since idiomatic Scheme uses pure functions and recursion (as opposed to idiomatic CL which is a lot more imperative).
What I meant was the name, although it's up for debate. The micro- would imply a subset, so it's much better than the many languages that call themselves Scheme, and really, really aren't.
As for microscheme, it looks cool. Although I am annoyed, because it implicitly claims to be Scheme (it's not), and it explicitly claims to be functional (scheme most definitely isn't). But those are just nitpicks.