I would still argue that it is not that straight forward and that the term compiler in the context of computer science was defined during simpler times and sinc

I would still argue that it is not that straight forward and that the term compiler in the context of computer science was defined during simpler times and since then the field has expanded making classification challenging. I might try to unpackage the definitions you provided if I have time, but until then, here are some half baked nuggets on my mind: - In the context of a Piet program, what would you call a psd2jpg program. It is a software that converts an algorithm expressed in a human-oriented source <<language>> (we can liken layers and masks to comments and Photoshop as the IDE of choice) to an equivalent algorithm expressed in a hardware-oriented target <<language>>. I would say this is more like converting a file from ASCII to UTF16 but it does fit the definition rather closely. - In the context of your PyInstaller example, I would say that reflects the non computing definition of the verb to compile: (1) to put together (documents, selections, or other materials) in one book or work, (2) to make (a book, writing, or the like) of materials from various sources, (3) to gather together. Yet isn't that what we call the linker? - I believe that in all those definitions the nature of the compiler is irrelevant. It may be a software program, a hardware ASIC or it may even be the job description of a person. The relevant part of the definition is the action "to compile". - I might even go as far as saying that a programmer in a Waterfall organisation is a single pass compiler and a programmer in an Agile organisation is a interactive compiler. They take an algorithm expressed in the business language (a higher level language) and translate it into a programming language (a lower level language) while preserving the meaning. Maybe I would even liken the various issues in communication and improperly defined specs to undefined behaviour in C.