> You don't need an interpreter anywhere, just a compiler. This is one of those claims that is technically true, but is misleading. Really, there isn't an inte

> You don't need an interpreter anywhere, just a compiler. This is one of those claims that is technically true, but is misleading. Really, there isn't an interpreter/compiler dichotomy, they are just variations on a theme. Or, standard definitions of them are variations on a theme, but often the line between them is very blurred (especially when just-in-time compilers come into it). People typically consider 'compiler' to mean 'static compiler'. It generates native code into an executable, and then the 'program' is the executable. Lisp compilers are clearly very different to this, but GCC falls clean into it. So it's wrong of you to allege that "you don't need an interpreter". You need a run-time component. Sure, this can be a compiler, rather than an interpreter, but its wrong to imply that you can support eval() simply with a static compiler such as gcc.