Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!NewsWatcher!user
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Interpreters (Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting))
Message-ID: <hbaker-2301950958450001@192.0.2.1>
Sender: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry G. Baker)
Organization: nil
References: <19941203T221402Z.enag@naggum.no> <LGM.94Dec5075553@polaris.ih.att.com> <D0CLt9.6K3@research.att.com> <BUFF.94Dec15103904@pravda.world> <D0xAIp.3Dn@rheged.dircon.co.uk> <vrotneyD11MDv.Ks7@netcom.com> <KARL.95Jan13010415@bagpuss.demon.co.uk> <hbaker-1401951022360001@192.0.2.1> <vrotneyD2HwK6.HEB@netcom.com> <3fdunb$lr8@news.panix.com> <hbaker-1601952306420001@192.0.2.1> <3fgug3$552@news.panix.com> <RFB.95Jan20150836@cfdevx1.lehman.com> <MATT.95Jan21135219@physics7.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 17:56:31 GMT
Lines: 27
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:108896 comp.lang.lisp:16461

In article <MATT.95Jan21135219@physics7.berkeley.edu>,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:

> In article <RFB.95Jan20150836@cfdevx1.lehman.com> rfb@lehman.com (Rick
Busdiecker) writes:
> 
> > I think that there is a common misconceptions that Lisp is an
> > ``interpreted language''.  In fact, there is nothing to prevent anyone
> > from building either a Lisp or a C++ in any of these configurations:
> >  1. Compiler and interpreter.
> >  2. Compiler with no interpreter
> >  3. Interpreter with no compiler
> 
> That's not really true.  Every dialect of lisp I've ever heard of
> includes the function eval.  Once you have eval, you have a lisp
> interpreter; the top-level read-eval-print loop is just a frill.
> 
> That's one reason why compiled lisp code is a bit unusual: the
> run-time library has to include the full interpreter.

I believe that Scheme does not require eval as a function.

In any case, a Lisp interpreter is actually quite small these days.
I think that one could write a Lisp interpreter in less room than
the space required for C's printf.  (E.g., look at AutoLisp, which is
implemented in < 32K bytes for the whole system, of which the interpreter
is a relatively small portion.)
