The following is Clozure Common Lisp. Every single input is compiled directly to machine code. Feed it source text and everything is compiled. Each and every expression.
Why should I call a direct native code compiler an 'Interpreter'? Makes no sense.
? (let ((f (lambda (a)
(+ 1 a))))
(disassemble f)
(funcall f 2))
;;; (lambda (a) (+ 1 a))
L0
(leaq (@ (:^ L0) (% rip)) (% fn)) ; [0]
(cmpl ($ 8) (% nargs)) ; [7]
(jne L57) ; [10]
(pushq (% rbp)) ; [12]
(movq (% rsp) (% rbp)) ; [13]
(pushq (% arg_z)) ; [16]
;;; (+ 1 a)
(leaveq) ; [17]
(testb ($ 7) (% arg_z.b)) ; [18]
(jne L39) ; [22]
(addq ($ 8) (% arg_z)) ; [24]
(jo L32) ; [28]
(repz)
(retq) ; [30]
L32
(jmpq (@ .SPFIX-OVERFLOW)) ; [32]
L39
(movl ($ 8) (% arg_y.l)) ; [39]
(jmpq (@ .SPBUILTIN-PLUS)) ; [44]
;;; #<no source text>
L57
(uuo-error-wrong-number-of-args) ; [57]
3 ; resultTraditionally, the twain ne'er did meet. However, many (most?) modern interpreters include a compiler as part of their implementation. Using a compiler in this manner is "Just in Time" (JIT) compilation.
So a box that takes Clozure Common Lisp and converts it to machine code is a compiler.
A box that takes Clozure Common Lisp, feeds it into this compiler to obtain machine code, and executes this machine code immediately, is an interpreter, using JIT compilation to do its interpretation.
The interpreter executes that language, not another.
> A box that takes Clozure Common Lisp, feeds it into this compiler to obtain machine code, and executes this machine code immediately, is an interpreter, using JIT compilation to do its interpretation.
It's neither an interpreter not using JIT compilation. It's an AOT compiler. It's just an incremental compiler.
> Nobody there would call them interpreter because of that.