Only global&#x2F;dynamic environments should be hashed. If you&#x27;re optimizing lexical environments from assoc to hashing, you&#x27;re optimizing interpreted semantics instead of writing a compiler.  The location of a lexical variable isn&#x27;t a moving target; it sits at some statically fixed offset in some environment frame, and access to it is reduced to an indexing operation in the compiled code.<p>Hashing lexicals will not necessarily speed up an interpreter. It depends on what kind of code and how you do it. A lot of code has only a few lexicals at any binding level. If you construct a new hash table on each entry into a binding construct which has only a handful of variables, that could end up performing worse than the original assoc lists. You still have to cascade through multiple hash tables under that approach to resolve nesting.  One hash table for an entire lexical scope leaves you with problems like how to resolve shadowing, and how to capture closures at different sub-nestings of that scope that have different lifetimes from containing scopes.