9 ms·

It baffles me that this notion of Lisp as an interpreted language still persists. Common Lisp is a compiled language for all non toy implementations, and in gen

by Guthur 10y ago

It baffles me that this notion of Lisp as an interpreted language still persists. Common Lisp is a compiled language for all non toy implementations, and in general Lisps have had compilers for decades.

nine_k 10y ago
Having a good REPL is important, though.
- hydandata 10y ago
  Having a REPL does not necessitate interpreting http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Compiler_002donly-Implementation http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Compiler_002donly-Implementation
- nabla9 10y ago
  REPL and interpretation are orthogonal concepts. SBCL (most common CL implementation) don't have interpreter at all. It complies into machine code before execution even in REPL.
  - juki 10y ago
    SBCL actually does have an interpreter, but doesn't use it by default. You can set sb-ext:*evaluator-mode* to :INTERPRET to enable it. http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Interpreter http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Interpreter
  - lispm 10y ago
    Though, to be fair, a 'real' Lisp interpreter often provides more interactive features. The Lisp interpreter sees the code as Lisp data and interprets that. This enables a few things.
    - lokedhs 10y ago
      You don't need an interpreter for that. SBCL (as does other compilers) always compiles an expression prior to executing it, even when it's code as data passed to EVAL.
      - lispm 10y ago
        > You don't need an interpreter for that. For what? > You don't need an interpreter for that. SBCL (as does other compilers) always compiles an expression prior to executing it, even when it's code as data passed to EVAL. True, but that's not what a Lisp interpreter does and provides. I was talking about the difference between an interpreter and a (possibly interactive) compiler. The interpreter works over source code as Lisp data. The compiler does not - it does not matter that the compiler compiles individual forms. At runtime the code is machine code. With an interpreter the code is Lisp data. Think about it: What difference could that make, if the code gets actually executed by a real Lisp interpreter?
PuercoPop 10y ago
It baffles me that people refer to languages as interpreted or compiled. That is a property of the implementation of the not the language.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by Guthur 10y ago

nine_k 10y ago

Having a good REPL is important, though.

hydandata 10y ago
Having a REPL does not necessitate interpreting http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Compiler_002donly-Implementation http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Compiler_002donly-Implementation
nabla9 10y ago
REPL and interpretation are orthogonal concepts. SBCL (most common CL implementation) don't have interpreter at all. It complies into machine code before execution even in REPL.
- juki 10y ago
  SBCL actually does have an interpreter, but doesn't use it by default. You can set sb-ext:*evaluator-mode* to :INTERPRET to enable it. http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Interpreter http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Interpreter
- lispm 10y ago
  Though, to be fair, a 'real' Lisp interpreter often provides more interactive features. The Lisp interpreter sees the code as Lisp data and interprets that. This enables a few things.
  - lokedhs 10y ago
    You don't need an interpreter for that. SBCL (as does other compilers) always compiles an expression prior to executing it, even when it's code as data passed to EVAL.
    - lispm 10y ago
      > You don't need an interpreter for that. For what? > You don't need an interpreter for that. SBCL (as does other compilers) always compiles an expression prior to executing it, even when it's code as data passed to EVAL. True, but that's not what a Lisp interpreter does and provides. I was talking about the difference between an interpreter and a (possibly interactive) compiler. The interpreter works over source code as Lisp data. The compiler does not - it does not matter that the compiler compiles individual forms. At runtime the code is machine code. With an interpreter the code is Lisp data. Think about it: What difference could that make, if the code gets actually executed by a real Lisp interpreter?

PuercoPop 10y ago

It baffles me that people refer to languages as interpreted or compiled. That is a property of the implementation of the not the language.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]