4 ms·
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. A
by 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 agoIndeed, 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 agoBytecode 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 agoGCC compiles C to assembly, and then uses GAS to turn that into actual machine code... So is GCC a transpiler, and GAS the compiler?