[bibyte]

The word "compiler" is so overloaded that every time someone mentions one it turns into an argument. This is the whole transpiler vs compiler vs interpreter vs JIT argument. The trouble is that sometimes some programmers implement all of them (myself included).

> CLISP has its own virtual machine, which is the target of its compiler

Then CPython is also a compiler? and Lua?

[lispm]

Yes, generally any source to byte-code translator is a compiler. The byte-code then can either be interpreted or compiled, too. Since the default CPython implementation interpreted the byte code, it was said it's an interpreter - but strictly speaking it is not.

Originally interpreters were implementations which execute source code - which in Lisp is widely available. For example SBCL for a long time only had a native code AOT compiler, but now also includes s-expressions.

Famous is also the Lisp interpreter in Lisp from McCarthy, where he defined the core language in itself. See the paper from Paul Graham about that: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/jmc.pdf That's a very primitive Lisp interpreter - many real ones are implemented in C, Assembler...

Just be aware, that in the Lisp world 'Interpreter' means something very specific: an interpreter of the source language.

[bibyte]

Fair enough. My assumption was that you would consider a source to bytecode compiler an interpreter (to be fair most people do). The next time I say something about Common Lisp I will list all the implementations instead of saying something as simplistic as "compiler" or "interpreter".

[lispm]

It's also complicated because some implementations support several modes. ECL for example has a Lisp interpreter, a byte-code compiler&interpreter and a native compilation via C. All code variants can work together and call each other.