4 ms·

> the majority of the reasons on why people make the distinction. You have provided some defining properties that might allow for distinction, but you have not

> the majority of the reasons on why people make the distinction. You have provided some defining properties that might allow for distinction, but you have not given any reasons for why people make a distinction. But perhaps we can suss it out. Given the statement "Borgo compiles to Go", what important information is lost that would be saved if "Borgo transpiles to Go" was used instead?

Matheus28 2y ago
In that statement, it doesn't really add anything. In the statement "XYZ is a compiler/transpiler", it does. It doesn't hurt to have a word that is more specific than others. Otherwise we should just refer to compilers as an "app" :)
- lolinder 2y ago
  I don't think anyone here is saying we shouldn't have the word "transpiler" at all, just that "transpiler" is a subcategory of "compiler" and there's no reason for OP to try to correct the title of this story. It reminds me of how my 5-year-old son always corrects me when I tell him to get in the car—"you mean the van!". I have tried to explain to him that a minivan is a kind of car, and he's just about getting it, but it's been a challenge for him to grasp.
  - gergo_barany 2y ago
    We shouldn't have the word "transpiler" at all.
  - Matheus28 2y ago
    >I don't think anyone here is saying we shouldn't have the word "transpiler" at all This thread chain is in response to jerf's comment "transpiler shouldn't be a word" (simplifying his comment for brevity's sake)
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Eh, that's one possible reading, but their actual take is more nuanced than that: > The word "transpiler" propagates the misunderstanding that there is something special about a compiler that emits machine code, that requires some special "compiler" techniques for special "compiler" purposes that are not necessary for "transpiler" purposes because "transpiling" requires a completely different set of techniques. In context of the parent comment I read this to be a reaction to someone insisting that we use "transpiler" instead of "compiler"—more an observation of what is happening here than a call to stop using the word altogether.
      - keybored 2y ago
        Someone argues that transpiler adds nothing (no nuance) over the original word. And your takeaway is that “I don't think anyone here is saying we shouldn't have the word "transpiler" at all” and that their original post is “more [of] an observation”? Does a person have to be all boorish and say that “you shouldn’t use that word” in order to convince you that they think it’s useless? Anyway this comment (newer than your comment) seems clear enough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40214781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40214781 > Ultimately, "compiler" isn't a bright shining line either... I can take anything and shade it down to the point where you might not be sure ("is that a 'compiler' or an 'interpreter'?"), but the "transpiler" term is trying to draw a line where there isn't even a seam in the landscape.
        randomdata 2y ago
        As no internet discussion is complete without a car analogy, car and automobile mean the same thing, but I see no reason why one of those terms needs to go away. Why can't transpiler and compiler peacefully coexist with the same meaning?
        keybored 2y ago
        Automobile should be scrapped before we get to self-driving cars. What’s a self-driving automobile? An autoautomobile? Get outta here!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- randomdata 2y ago
  > In the statement "XYZ is a compiler/transpiler", it does. Okay. What important information is lost in "XYZ is a compiler" that would be gained in "XYZ is a transpiler"? > It doesn't hurt to have a word that is more specific than others. It can if the intent is not properly understood. And so far I'm not sure we do have that understanding.

Matheus28 2y ago

In that statement, it doesn't really add anything. In the statement "XYZ is a compiler/transpiler", it does. It doesn't hurt to have a word that is more specific than others. Otherwise we should just refer to compilers as an "app" :)

lolinder 2y ago
I don't think anyone here is saying we shouldn't have the word "transpiler" at all, just that "transpiler" is a subcategory of "compiler" and there's no reason for OP to try to correct the title of this story. It reminds me of how my 5-year-old son always corrects me when I tell him to get in the car—"you mean the van!". I have tried to explain to him that a minivan is a kind of car, and he's just about getting it, but it's been a challenge for him to grasp.
- gergo_barany 2y ago
  We shouldn't have the word "transpiler" at all.
- Matheus28 2y ago
  >I don't think anyone here is saying we shouldn't have the word "transpiler" at all This thread chain is in response to jerf's comment "transpiler shouldn't be a word" (simplifying his comment for brevity's sake)
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Eh, that's one possible reading, but their actual take is more nuanced than that: > The word "transpiler" propagates the misunderstanding that there is something special about a compiler that emits machine code, that requires some special "compiler" techniques for special "compiler" purposes that are not necessary for "transpiler" purposes because "transpiling" requires a completely different set of techniques. In context of the parent comment I read this to be a reaction to someone insisting that we use "transpiler" instead of "compiler"—more an observation of what is happening here than a call to stop using the word altogether.
    - keybored 2y ago
      Someone argues that transpiler adds nothing (no nuance) over the original word. And your takeaway is that “I don't think anyone here is saying we shouldn't have the word "transpiler" at all” and that their original post is “more [of] an observation”? Does a person have to be all boorish and say that “you shouldn’t use that word” in order to convince you that they think it’s useless? Anyway this comment (newer than your comment) seems clear enough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40214781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40214781 > Ultimately, "compiler" isn't a bright shining line either... I can take anything and shade it down to the point where you might not be sure ("is that a 'compiler' or an 'interpreter'?"), but the "transpiler" term is trying to draw a line where there isn't even a seam in the landscape.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        As no internet discussion is complete without a car analogy, car and automobile mean the same thing, but I see no reason why one of those terms needs to go away. Why can't transpiler and compiler peacefully coexist with the same meaning?
        keybored 2y ago
        Automobile should be scrapped before we get to self-driving cars. What’s a self-driving automobile? An autoautomobile? Get outta here!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
randomdata 2y ago
> In the statement "XYZ is a compiler/transpiler", it does. Okay. What important information is lost in "XYZ is a compiler" that would be gained in "XYZ is a transpiler"? > It doesn't hurt to have a word that is more specific than others. It can if the intent is not properly understood. And so far I'm not sure we do have that understanding.