| > I wasn’t trying to insult Lisp. Sure, just categorizing Lisp as an interpreted languages isn't correct. > However my point was really about the availability of eval at run time, however it is implemented, and particularly eval that runs in the program’s address space and security context. Right, but technically Common Lisp doesn't requite eval to use a compiler and it can also load compiled code from the file system, at runtime. > Other implementations of Common Lisp always use interpretation, like CLISP. CLISP also provides a virtual machine with a byte code compiler (also optionally a JIT native code compiler), though the compiler needs to be called explicitly. > Also, Common Lisp has eval-when which affects the compile vs interpret decision [1]. Depends. In an implementation like SBCL or CCL, which use compilation for EVAL, it has no effect on such a decision. |