From: Bob Hutchison <hutch@...>
Date: 2005-09-28T06:08:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Lisp macros


On Sep 27, 2005, at 4:26 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:

> I believe early versions were actually interpreted only and you  
> definitely can have a Lisp interpreter that does no compilation  
> (you wouldn't want it for speed reasons but it's perfectly  
> feasible).  I still don't view Lisp as a compiled language.  As far  
> as I understand the language the runtime must contain a compiler if  
> you want compiled code.  To me this is a definite hint that  
> compilation is rather an optimization technique than a feature of  
> the language (as opposed to C etc.).  Am I wrong here?
>

All of the major implementations, with the exception of CLISP, are  
native compilers. I know many, if not all, no longer have  
interpreters at all. The only time you ever need to compile at  
runtime is if you call eval, load an uncompiled source file, or  
change some code on the fly (e.g. in the debugger or shell).

Cheers,
bob

----
Bob Hutchison          -- blogs at <http://www.recursive.ca/hutch/>
Recursive Design Inc.  -- <http://www.recursive.ca/>
Raconteur              -- <http://www.raconteur.info/>