3 ms·

Is the ad hoc distinction between compilation and "transpilation" really worth it? Can't we just call them compilers? I get that the difference between compilat

by ane 11y ago

Is the ad hoc distinction between compilation and "transpilation" really worth it? Can't we just call them compilers? I get that the difference between compilation and transpilation is that the target language of the latter is not a lower lever language, which would be in the case of C and Assembler, but that it targets a language that's more or less of a similar level. Is this really worthy of another term? I'm not sure.

seiji 11y ago
Maybe the transpiler is just a spackled polyfill enabling splats because dunders are unreliable?
noelwelsh 11y ago
I'm with you. A transpiler is exactly a compiler.
reikonomusha 11y ago
While as you point out there's not necessarily an academic difference, the notion that your target language will itself require a compiler and/or runtime is useful to know up front. Transpilers also usually attempt close to 1-to-1 translation. Functions become functions, constants become constants, etc. As someone who has written many compilers before, I'd almost feel it would be a slight disservice to call a transpiler a compiler, mostly because their architecture and goals are often different.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  I think the distinction is useful too, as it gives you a better idea of where a language actually sits in a development workflow.
  - progman 11y ago
    Then why not just use the term "translator"?
    - reikonomusha 11y ago
      Translate usually means something bijective.
- meric 11y ago
  I think it's fine to call it a compiler if it compiles a language to another of a lower level of abstraction, which may be true with compiling lisp to javascript, depending on if macros and read macros were implemented. There's just no way a programmer can manipulate the reader in javascript.
  - 0_00_0 11y ago
    Eval? Code as as string, parse, analyze, etc. Then code gen the JS you need into a string. Eval the string.
emptybits 11y ago
I don't see the need for a word beyond "translator" for what you describe. It's a well known word and used correctly, I think, if I say "this program translates Lisp into Javascript."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by ane 11y ago

seiji 11y ago

Maybe the transpiler is just a spackled polyfill enabling splats because dunders are unreliable?

noelwelsh 11y ago

I'm with you. A transpiler is exactly a compiler.

reikonomusha 11y ago

While as you point out there's not necessarily an academic difference, the notion that your target language will itself require a compiler and/or runtime is useful to know up front. Transpilers also usually attempt close to 1-to-1 translation. Functions become functions, constants become constants, etc. As someone who has written many compilers before, I'd almost feel it would be a slight disservice to call a transpiler a compiler, mostly because their architecture and goals are often different.

hellofunk 11y ago
I think the distinction is useful too, as it gives you a better idea of where a language actually sits in a development workflow.
- progman 11y ago
  Then why not just use the term "translator"?
  - reikonomusha 11y ago
    Translate usually means something bijective.
meric 11y ago
I think it's fine to call it a compiler if it compiles a language to another of a lower level of abstraction, which may be true with compiling lisp to javascript, depending on if macros and read macros were implemented. There's just no way a programmer can manipulate the reader in javascript.
- 0_00_0 11y ago
  Eval? Code as as string, parse, analyze, etc. Then code gen the JS you need into a string. Eval the string.

emptybits 11y ago

I don't see the need for a word beyond "translator" for what you describe. It's a well known word and used correctly, I think, if I say "this program translates Lisp into Javascript."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]