4 ms·

Technically speaking it is a transpiler, not a compiler.

braythwayt 11y ago
This one statement could easily trigger an avalanche larger than all the other comments combined. I’ll start: What is the difference between a transpiler and a compiler?
- scrollaway 11y ago
  A transpiler is a compiler that will transform a high level language into another high level language. Examples: Coffeescript, Sass, this thing. Compiling is a more generic term that includes transpiling, but is usually used to mean the kind that transforms into assembly/bytecode/executables. Edit: Since I have no interest in furthering a thread on a legitimate question, let me just answer to the replies here: There is no reason to make the difference other than pickiness, and there is no legitimate claim as to what is or isn't high level. Use your common sense, computers don't care whether it's a transpiler or compiler.
  - willismichael 11y ago
    If compiling includes transpiling, then isn't it both? Why make the distinction?
    - fnordsensei 11y ago
      Many argue that there's no difference. However, if I were to attempt a definition (not that I use the word), I'd say that transpiling is compilation from a language to another language with same or similar level of abstraction, whereas compiling might be to a language with lower level of abstraction.
  - charliesome 11y ago
    What makes a high level language? Is Assembly high level? In that case GCC would be a transpiler, not a compiler. What about C? If C is considered high level, the original C++ compiler would have to be considered a transpiler rather than a compiler. Same goes for Chicken Scheme, or any of the other compilers that target C. If we take the example even further, what about Fog Creek's Wasabi, which compiles to either PHP or VBScript? Or Ruby's compiler, which takes Ruby source and outputs very high level bytecode. I don't think there's much value in distinguishing 'transpilers' from compilers. It's still the exact same principles at play, no matter what your source or target languages are.

This one statement could easily trigger an avalanche larger than all the other comments combined. I’ll start: What is the difference between a transpiler and a compiler?

scrollaway 11y ago
A transpiler is a compiler that will transform a high level language into another high level language. Examples: Coffeescript, Sass, this thing. Compiling is a more generic term that includes transpiling, but is usually used to mean the kind that transforms into assembly/bytecode/executables. Edit: Since I have no interest in furthering a thread on a legitimate question, let me just answer to the replies here: There is no reason to make the difference other than pickiness, and there is no legitimate claim as to what is or isn't high level. Use your common sense, computers don't care whether it's a transpiler or compiler.
- willismichael 11y ago
  If compiling includes transpiling, then isn't it both? Why make the distinction?
  - fnordsensei 11y ago
    Many argue that there's no difference. However, if I were to attempt a definition (not that I use the word), I'd say that transpiling is compilation from a language to another language with same or similar level of abstraction, whereas compiling might be to a language with lower level of abstraction.
- charliesome 11y ago
  What makes a high level language? Is Assembly high level? In that case GCC would be a transpiler, not a compiler. What about C? If C is considered high level, the original C++ compiler would have to be considered a transpiler rather than a compiler. Same goes for Chicken Scheme, or any of the other compilers that target C. If we take the example even further, what about Fog Creek's Wasabi, which compiles to either PHP or VBScript? Or Ruby's compiler, which takes Ruby source and outputs very high level bytecode. I don't think there's much value in distinguishing 'transpilers' from compilers. It's still the exact same principles at play, no matter what your source or target languages are.