From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-09-29T03:46:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Lisp macros

Bob Hutchison <hutch@recursive.ca> wrote:
> 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).

True, but that doesn't contradict what I said, does it?  I mean, you can't 
have Lisp without eval - at least without it a major part would be missing. 
Or do I have a misconception of Lisp here?

Kind regards

    robert