6 ms·

I get that we've lost this battle, and some people seem to think there's a useful distinction being made, but man, does the word 'transpile' grate on me.

by burke 9y ago

doug1001 9y ago
thank you; some consolation to know it's not just me does this seems like another instance of the annoying practice in our field of someone giving a name to a thing because they think it's new, though it's not (ie, source-to-source compilers have been around as long as source-to-bytecode compilers)--no need to re-name them wish they would just stop it and get the hell off my lawn
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Yep, like calling themselves Engineer without having the respective degree. Thankfully in most jurisdictions it is forbidden by law to do as such.
- abiox 9y ago
  an example of "transpiler" from 1989 ;) https://books.google.com/books?id=l5I_AQAAIAAJ&q="transpiler"&dq="transpiler"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip75qFp8DYAhVI7IMKHe_tAhI4PBDoAQg3MAQ https://books.google.com/books?id=l5I_AQAAIAAJ&q="transpiler...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
clhodapp 9y ago
At the point where we are calling things that compile to assembly "transpilers" I don't think there is any distinction left, much less a useful one. I mean the classic notion of a compiler is a program that turns things into assembly, which is then taken into machine code by an assembler. I agree with you that we've lost though: no amount of protest is going to make people stop using the word "transpiler".
- drdrey 9y ago
  A compiler is a program that turns programs in a source language into equivalent programs in a target language. It is generally assumed that a compiler goes from high level to low level, a decompiler low-to-high and a transpiler high-to-high. I guess in this case the transpiler is low-to-low, so maybe "transpiler" is just used to mean "samey-to-samey"
  - lloeki 9y ago
    Isn't "low-to-low" typically called static recompilation or binary translation esp. in emulation circles?
    - iotscale 9y ago
      That is correct but we are not talking in the context of the emulation circles.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ant6n 9y ago
  A compiler is a program that translates programs from one language to another. > At the point where we are calling things that compile to assembly "transpilers" I don't think there is any distinction left "Transpiler" is grating (apparently).
gatmne 9y ago
> some people seem to think there's a useful distinction being made What is that distinction? Excluding the javascript crowd, I doubt this phrase will see extensive use in the field until the term gets properly defined and is meaningfully distinct from the word Compile as used today.
- nurettin 9y ago
  I assume "javascript crowd" knows how to compile their node binary. Thus, they know the distinction between babeljs and gcc, and therefore they know the distinction between compiler and transpiler.
  - gatmne 9y ago
    What's the distinction between Compile and transpile then? and is this distinction agreed upon and meaningful?
    - nurettin 9y ago
      I agree with drdrey's definition here[1], which is echoed in paragraph two here[2] as well, which provides you with the agreement part at least. Whether if it is meaningful to you, is up to you. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16076823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16076823 [2] - https://hackernoon.com/moving-to-es6-babel-and-transpilers-337921c025b1 https://hackernoon.com/moving-to-es6-babel-and-transpilers-3...
abiox 9y ago
well, there's even a wiki page for source-to-source translation. it's not always useful to distinguish 'truck' from 'automobile', but sometimes it is.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  It's sometimes useful to distinguish “truck” from “automobile”, but never when the thing being labelled a “truck” is a Honda Civic.
  - abiox 9y ago
    are you saying it's not useful to refer to something as a transpiler if it's not a transpiler? that sounds reasonable.
lopatin 9y ago
There was a battle? Transpile is between human readable sources, and compiler is always into machine readable code. This is the only project that I've seen to (for some reason) not conform to that definition. I guess I don't see the point of contention.
- stefano 9y ago
  Transpilers used to be called "source-to-source compilers", or "compilers" when the "source-to-source" distinction wasn't relevant. Then the JS world came along and decided to use a new word to make it look more hip and cool.
  - dagw 9y ago
    It's not a new word. People have been using the word "transpiler" or "transcompiler" for source-to-source compilers since at least the late 80's [0]. They used to be popular for translating between different dialects of assembly. Then they fell out of fashion for a while before gaining popularity again in the last decade for targeting JavaScript. So while the "JS world" is responsible for re-popularizing both the word and the concept, they certainly didn't invent it. [0]edit: Apparently 60's.
  - jasode 9y ago
    >decided to use a new word A friendly FYI... the old word "transpiler" has been around since at least the 1960s. See the 2nd-to-last paragraph on the last page: http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/1/28.full.pdf+html http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/1/28.full.pdf+htm...
- burke 9y ago
  > compiler is always into machine readable code The frustrating bit is that this is absolutely not true. A compiler is anything that parses some text according to some grammar, manipulates it, and emits it in a different format. While the most well-known and popular compilers are for C, to emit machine code, there's nothing inherent in the definition of a compiler that means it can't emit something human-readable. I wouldn't have nearly as much issue with this if the JavaScript community instead had decided "compiler isn't specific enough: we need different words for compilers that drop vs. maintain a level of abstraction", rather than "we need a word for a thing like a compiler, but that doesn't, as compilers apparently inherently do, drop a level of abstraction".

I get that we've lost this battle, and some people seem to think there's a useful distinction being made, but man, does the word 'transpile' grate on me.

by burke 9y ago

I get that we've lost this battle, and some people seem to think there's a useful distinction being made, but man, does the word 'transpile' grate on me.

doug1001 9y ago

thank you; some consolation to know it's not just me does this seems like another instance of the annoying practice in our field of someone giving a name to a thing because they think it's new, though it's not (ie, source-to-source compilers have been around as long as source-to-bytecode compilers)--no need to re-name them wish they would just stop it and get the hell off my lawn

pjmlp 9y ago
Yep, like calling themselves Engineer without having the respective degree. Thankfully in most jurisdictions it is forbidden by law to do as such.
abiox 9y ago
an example of "transpiler" from 1989 ;) https://books.google.com/books?id=l5I_AQAAIAAJ&q="transpiler"&dq="transpiler"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip75qFp8DYAhVI7IMKHe_tAhI4PBDoAQg3MAQ https://books.google.com/books?id=l5I_AQAAIAAJ&q="transpiler...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

clhodapp 9y ago

At the point where we are calling things that compile to assembly "transpilers" I don't think there is any distinction left, much less a useful one. I mean the classic notion of a compiler is a program that turns things into assembly, which is then taken into machine code by an assembler. I agree with you that we've lost though: no amount of protest is going to make people stop using the word "transpiler".

drdrey 9y ago
A compiler is a program that turns programs in a source language into equivalent programs in a target language. It is generally assumed that a compiler goes from high level to low level, a decompiler low-to-high and a transpiler high-to-high. I guess in this case the transpiler is low-to-low, so maybe "transpiler" is just used to mean "samey-to-samey"
- lloeki 9y ago
  Isn't "low-to-low" typically called static recompilation or binary translation esp. in emulation circles?
  - iotscale 9y ago
    That is correct but we are not talking in the context of the emulation circles.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ant6n 9y ago
A compiler is a program that translates programs from one language to another. > At the point where we are calling things that compile to assembly "transpilers" I don't think there is any distinction left "Transpiler" is grating (apparently).

gatmne 9y ago

> some people seem to think there's a useful distinction being made What is that distinction? Excluding the javascript crowd, I doubt this phrase will see extensive use in the field until the term gets properly defined and is meaningfully distinct from the word Compile as used today.

nurettin 9y ago
I assume "javascript crowd" knows how to compile their node binary. Thus, they know the distinction between babeljs and gcc, and therefore they know the distinction between compiler and transpiler.
- gatmne 9y ago
  What's the distinction between Compile and transpile then? and is this distinction agreed upon and meaningful?
  - nurettin 9y ago
    I agree with drdrey's definition here[1], which is echoed in paragraph two here[2] as well, which provides you with the agreement part at least. Whether if it is meaningful to you, is up to you. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16076823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16076823 [2] - https://hackernoon.com/moving-to-es6-babel-and-transpilers-337921c025b1 https://hackernoon.com/moving-to-es6-babel-and-transpilers-3...

abiox 9y ago

well, there's even a wiki page for source-to-source translation. it's not always useful to distinguish 'truck' from 'automobile', but sometimes it is.

dragonwriter 9y ago
It's sometimes useful to distinguish “truck” from “automobile”, but never when the thing being labelled a “truck” is a Honda Civic.
- abiox 9y ago
  are you saying it's not useful to refer to something as a transpiler if it's not a transpiler? that sounds reasonable.

lopatin 9y ago

There was a battle? Transpile is between human readable sources, and compiler is always into machine readable code. This is the only project that I've seen to (for some reason) not conform to that definition. I guess I don't see the point of contention.

stefano 9y ago
Transpilers used to be called "source-to-source compilers", or "compilers" when the "source-to-source" distinction wasn't relevant. Then the JS world came along and decided to use a new word to make it look more hip and cool.
- dagw 9y ago
  It's not a new word. People have been using the word "transpiler" or "transcompiler" for source-to-source compilers since at least the late 80's [0]. They used to be popular for translating between different dialects of assembly. Then they fell out of fashion for a while before gaining popularity again in the last decade for targeting JavaScript. So while the "JS world" is responsible for re-popularizing both the word and the concept, they certainly didn't invent it. [0]edit: Apparently 60's.
- jasode 9y ago
  >decided to use a new word A friendly FYI... the old word "transpiler" has been around since at least the 1960s. See the 2nd-to-last paragraph on the last page: http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/1/28.full.pdf+html http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/1/28.full.pdf+htm...
burke 9y ago
> compiler is always into machine readable code The frustrating bit is that this is absolutely not true. A compiler is anything that parses some text according to some grammar, manipulates it, and emits it in a different format. While the most well-known and popular compilers are for C, to emit machine code, there's nothing inherent in the definition of a compiler that means it can't emit something human-readable. I wouldn't have nearly as much issue with this if the JavaScript community instead had decided "compiler isn't specific enough: we need different words for compilers that drop vs. maintain a level of abstraction", rather than "we need a word for a thing like a compiler, but that doesn't, as compilers apparently inherently do, drop a level of abstraction".