3 ms·
This has nothing to do with interpreted or compiled. SBCL compiles all code to native code - it has optional interpreter functionality, which is not needed most
by lispm 3y ago
This has nothing to do with interpreted or compiled. SBCL compiles all code to native code - it has optional interpreter functionality, which is not needed most of the time.
Creating an sbcl executable for Linux is simply a call to dump an application, add the runtime and save that to some place. The there is an executable on the disk. The only thing is that the executable is not small or tiny -> but they include the compiler/loader/repl/..., which is useful.
Many other Lisps also can create executables. A LispWorks executable application on my Linux/ARM64 starts with roughly 7MB and it has unused stuff removed by a "treeshaker".
- matheusmoreira 3y ago> This has nothing to do with interpreted or compiled. I agree with you. That's what I tried to express in my post. They asked for a compiled lisp but the actual requirement was self contained executables which interpreted languages could also fulfill.
- lispm 3y agoYes. Many Lisp implementations even can mix it in one executable. One, two or three modes of these: source interpreter, byte code interpreter, native code.