alt Hacker News> I think conceptually, Lisp was an interpreted runtime.
This is a strange statement. The manual for Lisp 1.5 describes a compiled language. Lisps have been compiled for over 64 years now using just that version as a baseline. Why do you think Lisp was meant to be interpreted instead?
Replies
yubblegum • yesterday at 10:29 PM
You are ignoring his "conceptually" bit and that is a reference to R.E.P.Loop which is what interpreters do: they read, they evaluate, they output, and loop.
➕ show 1 reply
Hey, I'm probably punching out of my weight class here - I'm basically a Lisp beginner. But I will say that I don't think the manual for Lisp 1.5 gets as much airtime as the original John McCarthy eval statement, which does describe an interpreter. I do think there's a lot of conceptual overlap between an interpreter and a REPL. And while I've not read SICP my understanding is that they teach a Lisp interpreter. And also I think the author of this article is describing an interpreted language.
So I don't think I'm over my skis here. But I appreciate your clarifying point! I've not read the Lisp 1.5 manual but I probably should!