3 ms·
I agree with the article, there is no meaningful distinction between a compiler and what people typically call a transpiler except if you have a two way transla
by dgb23 5y ago
I agree with the article, there is no meaningful distinction between a compiler and what people typically call a transpiler except if you have a two way translation.
Also „machine code“ is not even the last step anymore, it gets further cached, interpreted compiled to instructions by the hardware. It’s abstraction layers all the way down.
- jerf 5y agoNo, transpilers are completely different than compilers. For a transpiler, you generally need a tokenizer, then a parser to parse the token stream into an AST, which you will then have some set of transformation steps, often transforming into other ASTs for optimization steps or incremental transforms to the final target, before you take the final AST and serialize it out into the target. Wherease for a compiler, you generally need a tokenizer, then a parser to parse the token stream into an AST, which you will then have some set of transformation steps, often transforming into other ASTs for optimization steps or incremental transforms to the final target, before you take the final AST and serialize it out into the target. If I was hiring for a compiler position and someone showed up with 10 years of transpiler authorship on their resume, I wouldn't even look at them. Such divergent experience would be useless. It would be like hiring someone for a Javascript backend position when all they had was 10 years of intensive Javascript frontend experience. Madness. You'll go out of business making stupid hiring decisions like that.
- dleslie 5y agoYou wouldn't hire someone with near-but-different skills and a decade of competency because they don't fit a niche, highly specific of requirements? I think you'll spend more time and effort hiring than you would've spent training.