Land of Lisp worked well for me. Can't remember any major issues. (That said, I think I also used racket for most of the work, so I had to change some things consciously.)
Though, this is a bit of a hard problem for authors. Most code that can fit as snippets or short examples does not have what any code in real projects would have. To that end, the code is literally made mainly for you to try and simulate in your head. Running on a computer is a convenience and should be used, but the goal is to internalize it all. Right?
I wonder if LoL was not referring instead to Let Over Lambda which I'd call more timeless... For Land of Lisp there is some implementation specific code the author uses, but he points that out, points out that there are libraries that make a de facto standard for the behavior, but didn't want to introduce quicklisp. (It's a fun book but not the best if your goal is getting productive in a work environment fast, in which case learning about asdf and quicklisp early on is crucial...)
Lisp books in my experience have been the most reliable for running old code. I can take Lisp code from 1960 and almost entirely unmodified run it in a modern Common Lisp implementation because there's a direct line of heritage. If a book from the 90s says it supports Common Lisp, well hey, barring errata the code still works every time...
That form of stability is one that I really wish modern developers would aspire to. I love that I can still run code in some of the old books. Seems the newer my book, the less likely I am to be able to run its code. :(
Though, this is a bit of a hard problem for authors. Most code that can fit as snippets or short examples does not have what any code in real projects would have. To that end, the code is literally made mainly for you to try and simulate in your head. Running on a computer is a convenience and should be used, but the goal is to internalize it all. Right?