> Is the level same-level-of-abstraction really part of the usual meaning of the term? No. That's just a definition by the author. The languages might operate

> Is the level same-level-of-abstraction really part of the usual meaning of the term? No. That's just a definition by the author. The languages might operate on the same or close level of abstraction, but that doesn't mean that all logical constructs of the source and the transpiled target have to map. Especially the authors conclusion that a "transpilation is therefore a two-way process where you could go back and forth between languages" is not a necessary feature of a transpiler.