Yep, the answer is both... this distinction is from the 70s and doesn't apply to many newer languages.

You mentioned a Perl to LLVM translation in SO, where can I find out more about this project?

That was 10 year ago, and I haven't heard anything since. Probably mentioned on the p5p mailing list?

Seeking work! You can reach me at ikegami@adaelis.com

I like one of the comments below your linked post which points out what's really important in this distinction: interpreted language can be extended ad-hoc, eg. eval. That's a lot of flexibility.

What if we bundled the executable of a "compiler language" like C or Go with a compiler?

Why shouldn't it be possible to do that?

And "eval"-ing would mean to run a make process leading to dynamically linked and executed code?

According to you this would define an "interpreter", right? :)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

no, that would amount to shelling out, like with system(). eval'ing shares (edit: parent) program state, variables and can also influence/modify these.