3 ms·

*interpreter/transpiler, not a compiler

by adtac 9y ago

tomsmeding 9y ago
The interpreter is certainly an interpreter, but a transpiler is arguably also a compiler, be it maybe with an easier target than most conventional compilers. Assembly language and machine code are also languages you can program in; in that sense you'd also have to call gcc a transpiler ;)
- adtac 9y ago
  Indeed, every compiler is a transpiler: it transpiles into asm. But not every transpiler is a compiler in the truest sense of the term. IMO only transpiling to machine language qualifies as compiling. But we're just arguing about semantics here :) My comment was more directed towards the interpreter part of things.
  - sebazzz 9y ago
    > IMO only transpiling to machine language qualifies as compiling. It is not black and white, compiling to IL or bytecode qualifies as compiling. Perhaps compiling means compilation to a binary executable format?
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Bytecode is machine language, specially on mainframes and computer architectures up to early 80's. It is all a matter how the CPU executes it, direct mapping of machine code into gates, or micro-coded translation layer.
  - wtetzner 9y ago
    > Indeed, every compiler is a transpiler: it transpiles into asm. But not every transpiler is a compiler in the truest sense of the term. I think you have it backwards. Every transpiler is a compiler, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
  - Vendan 9y ago
    GCC compiles C to assembly, and then uses GAS to turn that into actual machine code... So is GCC a transpiler, and GAS the compiler?
always_good 9y ago
Can you update the first sentence of this wikipedia article to point out that a transpiler is not a compiler? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler It would help squelch the confusion for future forum bike shedding. Someone seems to try and point this out every time it comes up like they're winning some sort of pedantry points, but I don't see how they could be. Please illuminate me so I understand the next time someone says this and possibly join la resistencia.

*interpreter/transpiler, not a compiler

by adtac 9y ago

*interpreter/transpiler, not a compiler

The interpreter is certainly an interpreter, but a transpiler is arguably also a compiler, be it maybe with an easier target than most conventional compilers. Assembly language and machine code are also languages you can program in; in that sense you'd also have to call gcc a transpiler ;)

adtac 9y ago
Indeed, every compiler is a transpiler: it transpiles into asm. But not every transpiler is a compiler in the truest sense of the term. IMO only transpiling to machine language qualifies as compiling. But we're just arguing about semantics here :) My comment was more directed towards the interpreter part of things.
- sebazzz 9y ago
  > IMO only transpiling to machine language qualifies as compiling. It is not black and white, compiling to IL or bytecode qualifies as compiling. Perhaps compiling means compilation to a binary executable format?
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Bytecode is machine language, specially on mainframes and computer architectures up to early 80's. It is all a matter how the CPU executes it, direct mapping of machine code into gates, or micro-coded translation layer.
- wtetzner 9y ago
  > Indeed, every compiler is a transpiler: it transpiles into asm. But not every transpiler is a compiler in the truest sense of the term. I think you have it backwards. Every transpiler is a compiler, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
- Vendan 9y ago
  GCC compiles C to assembly, and then uses GAS to turn that into actual machine code... So is GCC a transpiler, and GAS the compiler?

always_good 9y ago

Can you update the first sentence of this wikipedia article to point out that a transpiler is not a compiler? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler It would help squelch the confusion for future forum bike shedding. Someone seems to try and point this out every time it comes up like they're winning some sort of pedantry points, but I don't see how they could be. Please illuminate me so I understand the next time someone says this and possibly join la resistencia.