Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.java,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: GC, Java, etc.
Message-ID: <DGnBDL.CxB@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <DGGpDx.IGE@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>  <activisDGJr2B.4Ex@netcom.com> <4kUj=Ay00iV8A84qw1@andrew.cmu.edu> <DGLEnz.BvF@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:12:05 GMT
Lines: 23
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.dylan:5466 comp.lang.java:1979 comp.lang.lisp:19580

hall@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall) writes:

>In article <4kUj=Ay00iV8A84qw1@andrew.cmu.edu> 
>"Noah L. Gibbs" <angelbob+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>>    This also depends on what you mean by compiler.  I consider, e.g.
>>Allegro CommonLISP to be interpreted, although the professor of our course
>>assured us it was "incrementally compiled".  However, the speed, interact-
>>ivity, and every other empirical test indicated it was an
>>interpreter.

>You can run Lisp code either interpreted or compiled in Allegro Common
>Lisp. The Common Lisp standard requires a compiler but not an interpreter.

Not quite.  It's true that there an interpreter is _not_ required,
but it's not quite true that a compiler _is_ required.  All that's
_required_ is "minimal compilation", which it little more than
expanding macros and the like.

However, most Common Lisps have perfectly good compilers to native
code.

-- jeff
